RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS


a balanced equation




A Study in Thought

sa046



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Every right has to be paid-for with an obligation.
The principles of cellular inter-dependence.
Specialisations in form and function.
A poverty of regulatory mechanisms for the societies of mankind.
Human rights, and the mechanisms that are necessary to guide a social organisation.
A cultural code develops, to a large extent, beyond the input of conscious awareness.
Customs and mores, developing into laws and regulatory principles.
The law; seen as a hindrance, or as a tool, in the pursuit of egocentric benefits.
When a law sanctions the private ownership of property.
Why the laws of society tend to accentuate disparities.
The sense of justice, versus the deliberate creation of a condition of justice.
The "social contract".
Egocentric concerns are an inalienable part of our biological heritage and have to be controled with firm cultural guidelines.

Every right is paid-for with an obligation, and, the right to know is no exception, since it is inevitably linked to the obligation to divulge or disclose information. This statement is probably obvious to you, but you may have a number of questions. Is it really that simple? What is a right, and, in particular, what is a "human right"?

Those, who are familiar with the definition of a human right as a generally agreed-upon privilege or benefit bestowed by society upon all its members, may still welcome a review of the wide-ranging concepts of human rights and obligations. We will discover, that these ideas flow logically from the needs of social and individual existence.

Social or symbiotic existence is a mode of living together, where a group of similar organisms begins to explore the possibilities of specialisation in function and inter-dependence in existence. This means, that, gradually, a state of competition is transformed into one of mutual reliance, but, inter-dependence can only occur, if the members of the emerging unit, such as a group of cells on its way to become a multi-cellular organism, begin to specialise their functions and carry-out only a small segment of the overall spectrum of existential chores.

By specialising in function, and, often, in form as well, these organisms start to diverge in their activities, but, at the same time, they begin to rely on an exchange of functions, because each member becomes dependent upon functions that are carried-out by others.

The community as a whole, still needs to perform the entire spectrum of existentially necessary chores, but, individual members perform, almost exclusively, a specialised function for the community as a whole, and, they become, thereby, dependent upon receiving products or benefits from the activities of other specialised members, in order to make-up the full range of their existential requirements.

This is a generalised description of the principles of cellular differentiation and inter-dependence, which form the foundation for each and every multi-cellular organism. Certainly, there exists a measure of variability between multi-cellular individuals of a particular species, because they form a group of organisms that share a common gene-pool. The actualised members of a species "try-out" a myriad of possible combinations of the gene-pool through the methods of sexual reproduction.

The sexual mode of reproduction provides a genetic spectrum of existence possibilities with a much greater range of adaptation compared to an a-sexual mode of reproduction, where the offspring carries exactly the same genetic make-up as the parental generation. The sexual mode has become the predominant mode of reproduction for the more complex multi-cellular organisms.

In order for a community of symbiotically living cells to become highly specialised and inter-dependent, it is obviously necessary, that a body of regulatory mechanisms ensures the continuation of the organisational blue-print. This organisational blue-print includes the regulation and integration of metabolic functions, as well as the guidance of developmental sequences upon which the multi-cellular society has staked its continued existence.

This body of regulatory mechanisms, which guides the development and maintenance of a large cellular community, such as a human being, has been shaped by a long evolutionary search for viable possibilities of existence. It is, therefore, entirely genetically encoded, and, its mechanisms are still, largely, beyond our manipulative grasp or intellectual comprehension.

In the socialisation of individually existing multi-cellular organisms, we see a parallel with the evolutionary mechanisms of cellular symbiosis, but, if we concentrate our attention, now, primarily, on the development of the human society, we see marked differences as well. First of all, the specialisation in function of human individuals falls entirely within the behavioural range, and, it is, therefore, not associated with anatomical or physiological differences in the constitution of the body, in spite of the fact, that, often, the accident of birth determines in which social class an individual will perform its functions. In addition, multi-cellular individuals forming a social unit, remain physically separate and mobile in relation to each other, unlike the physical linkage or structural organisation of cells in a multi-cellular organism.

The main difference lies, however, in the fact, that, few, if any, of the regulatory mechanisms necessary to convey a measure of stability to the larger societies of mankind, (and, with it, a measure of viability to its members), are genetically given, but, these regulatory mechanisms are largely the result of a somewhat haphazard, poorly protected and rapidly decaying code of cultural values, such as laws, customs, concepts, notions and ideas.

The origin and meaning of human rights are found within this cultural code, because, after all, human rights are nothing more, and nothing less, than a body of guidelines for our collective and individual behaviour. These regulatory principles have slowly become a part of our conscious awarenesses, and, they can therefore be articulated, discussed and grasped as concepts and ideas.

It is important to emphasise, once again, the idea, that the entire complex of cultural guidelines develops largely beyond the awareness of the members of a society. While the members are aware, be it in varying degrees, of the cultural content of their society, rarely, if ever, are they able to abstract and verbalise the overall meaning and function of this social organisation.

People may be aware of the fact, that certain customs, rites, stories or attitudes are extra-ordinarily valuable or meaningful, but, we are only now beginning to realise, to some extent, that the ultimate meaning of a culture lies in the fact, that it represents a search for the most viable way to live together. Only now, are we beginning to conceptualise the general principles that lie behind these remarkably variable and changeable cultural expressions. We still tend to glorify certain cultural values and artifacts, without really knowing why they are valuable.

Customs and mores are more primitive, less precisely verbalised cultural regulators than explicit laws and regulations. However, customs still play an important role in inter-individual contacts, in spite of the fact that they are often a "relic of the past". Only much later in the evolution of cultural regulator-mechanisms became it possible to abstract certain customs as conscious principles with a generalised validity. These became the early laws of a social environment, and, it is interesting to note, that the art of making valid generalisations took a long time to developed.

Initially, a law was a body of judgements about separate incidents, occurrences or events, which served as a reference for similar occurrences in the future, but, slowly, generalised principles were abstracted from such a series of specific incidences. Even now, it is customary to refer to specific cases of the past as "precedents", especially, when arguing the merits of a particular point of view in a Court of Law.

If we look at the laws of a modern society, we see, that, indeed, many of them have been formulated on the basis of precedents, and, laws are, therefore, still, primarily practical guidelines that seem to satisfy, in the best possible manner, the intuitive requirements of justice and common-sense.

Nevertheless, many people tend to look upon this set of laws and regulatory mechanisms with incomprehension. Many people learn to "live with the law", in the sense, that they recognise the nasty consequences and problems they get into, whenever they do not heed the law, but, a broad understanding of the reasons why laws are necessary, who shapes them, or, the fact that ordinary people have a measure of influence upon the legislative processes of a democratic society, is lacking; at least, these insights are lacking for a significant number of people living in a complex, large and rapidly changing social conglomerate.

Even the more powerful and influential groupings in society, the wealthy and established elite, the successful entrepreneurs, as well as those closely involved with government bureaucracies or leadership structures, are tempted to use the law for their own advantage. Even these people fail to recognise, how easily justice is destroyed, and, how damaging exploitative attitudes are for the cohesion of society.

Whenever a majority of the members in society, regardless of the social stratum they happen to belong to, consider the laws of society as a body of obstacles to be avoided, or, to make use of for personal gain, the cultural guidelines have become meaningless, and the social unit is going through a period of steep decline.

If we consider the law, only, as a hindrance to our freedom, or, as a vehicle with which we claim our civil rights, we have, in essence, reverted back to an "adversary attitude", where we use the tools of the law as a weapon in our egocentric fights for dominance or privilege. We are then destroying the remnants of social cohesion, because it is so easy to abuse the laws and regulations of society for our own particular purpose.

If a law attempts to regulate the right to property, and, if it allows an individual to hold-on to an asset that has been obtained without obvious criminal infractions against the laws of society, we notice a curious and ironic distortion of the conditions of justice which the laws of property ownership are attempting to safeguard. In nature, territory, power, or any sort of possession, can only be claimed as long as the claimant is capable of defending this territory or property. As soon as the powers of defense have weakened, this territory or property is confiscated and claimed by a more powerful owner.

In an attempt to forestall this ruthless and, apparently, unjust transfer of assets via the mechanisms of the law of the jungle, or, the right of the mighty, the law sanctions and protects ownership that has been obtained by communally approved means.

This means, however, that the law of property-rights perpetuates the power of ownership far beyond the natural time-limit, where an individual, claiming territory or property, could defend his assets through his own strength and protect those, who have submitted to him. When property laws began to sanction the inheritance of a position of wealth and privilege for the offspring of successful and wealthy people, the natural mechanisms of hierarchical positioning on the basis of merit, (and, later, the practice of essential equality for the members of a much larger social unit), were severely affected, or, even, destroyed by such well-intended laws and regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, what appeared to reflect common-sense and a sense of justice, became, quickly, an instrument of class-division as well as a source of strong resentment.

Property-laws tend to perpetuate, and accentuate, natural disparities that develop as a result of differences in talent, ambition, aggressiveness, clever opportunism and luck. In the complex societies of today, accessibility to the mechanisms of the judicial settlement has already become a matter of financial power because of the need to hire experts to represent, in Court, the parties involved in a dispute. This practice is destroying, even further, the ideals of equality under the law, as the Courtroom becomes a battlefield of wits, and money.

The manner in which the legal regulations and guidelines for acceptable behaviour within society are abused in a power-struggle between adversaries, reflects our disastrous ignorance about the function and meaning of the larger societies. It reflects the fact, that, by and large, we consider our societies to be "arenas of combat", where the methods of strife have shifted from armed force to the power of money, as well as the clever use of legal instruments. Consequently, we tend to lose sight of the fact, that the laws of society are cultural regulators that should make us more cooperative and inter-dependent, rather than more cleverly exploitative.

The "sense of justice" is an intuitive judgement about the degree of congruence between the position we experience ourselves to be in, and, the way we see ourselves and our social environment. We all know, how deeply this sense of justice can be affronted by discrepancies between the way we are being treated, and, the position, we feel, we should be able to occupy on the basis of merit and talent, ambitions or capabilities.

We have hardened ourselves to the pain of a wounded sense of justice with an attitude of cynicism or ruthless egocentricity. Yet, if look at the basic mechanisms of symbiosis or socialisation, we understand, better, what is happening to us in the larger societies. We understand, then, that socialisation, means, the replacement of competitive strife by mutual inter-dependence through a process of differentiation in function and specialisation in task-performance.

Until now, we have rarely paid attention to these biological phenomena, because we have not been able to see the relevance of the parallels we can draw between these biological phenomena and the events we experience and observe in our societies. We have traced, on a number of occasions, the development of the "sense of justice", and, we should not repeat these arguments here. Let us only summarise our conclusions in the statement, that, hierarchical positioning is a grudging and reluctant relinquishing of territoriality, together with the behaviour of all-out competitiveness, and, within complex social environments, the solution to the problem of finding a place in a complex hierarchical order, is the "contract of essential equality".

By adopting the concept and practice of "essential equality", the problems associated with testing the relative strength of the members of society in order to establish a natural hierarchy, are avoided. In a large society, the meaning of a hierarchical order becomes fuzzy and its establishment cumbersome, and, the problems of relating to each other can be solved, much better, by adopting such a contract of being essentially equal in rank and rights. However, such an agreement or contract has to be maintained; if not, there is a "breach of contract", and, such a breach of contract is felt as a "wounded sense of justice".

It makes sense to consider the larger human society to have been based on an intuitive contract of essential equality, because this idea emphasises the need to transform an empirically and largely subconscious development of behavioural guidelines, to a system of social integration, where the requirements for social cohesion and the purpose of social integration become more precisely verbalised concepts.

If we become more consciously aware of the reasons for the existence of a socially integrated entity, we should be able to see, why it is wrong, and self-defeating, to consider these guidelines and laws as obstacles to be avoided, or, as tools to be used for egocentric gain. We will then see, clearly, the contradictions that are inherent in an attitude that pays lip-service to these social guidelines, while condoning or promoting a behaviour that is, in essence, contrary to the intentions of social integration.

We will understand, much more clearly, why it becomes impossible for a society to survive, when it merely goes through the motions of being a social unit, or, when it gives only an external appearance of compliance with these guidelines, while, in reality, the attitudes of a majority of the members of society have already reverted back to an egocentric orientation and a state of fierce competitiveness.

If we consider our society to be, ideally, a voluntary and mutually agreed-upon contract between "essential equals", (where we specialise in one particular function in return for the benefits or products of other specialised people in society), we will realise, that we have to keep a vigilant watch upon the ever-present temptation to exploit a position of power.

We will see, that, such a contract of essential equality presumes an equality of benefit for everyone, as well as an equality in power relationships. If power begins to gravitate towards a particular segment of society, the benefits of belonging to society will accumulate there, too, and the other segments of society are in danger of being exploited for the benefit of a dominating segment or a powerful elite.

We have to acknowledge, that a tendency for power to concentrate into the hands of an exploitative elite, is indeed a natural result of our biological heritage, and, we will not be able to come to grips with the problems of creating a just society, unless these mechanisms have been clearly recognised. We can not ban this tendency from our existence by considering it an "alien evil", inspired by satanic forces, nor, can we solve the problem by considering this trend a correctible but reactionary aberration of an inadequately indoctrinated mind.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Learning to live with the realities of our instinctive drives.
The increasing importance of consciously formulated regulatory principles.
The criteria of viability have already shifted to the cultural code.
We still have not defined, what, exactly, we need for a just and stable social environment.
The objection that people are not "born equal", and are not endowed equally with talents or ambitions.
The need to cut-out, resolutely, a festering sore.
Talented people with leadership capabilities do not have to become all-powerful.
Essential equality, defined as the essential similarity of basic existential needs for every human being.
The charismatic leader.
Human rights can only be given by a society, if a majority of its members is willing to work hard and make it possible for society to distribute these rights.
People have to understand the importance of the social unit, and, they must be willing to forego the temptation of elitist advantage-taking.
Class-divisions are not divinely ordained.
The give and take in a social environment; an excercise in reciprocity.
The privilege of excercising a right, and tolerating a process of individualisation.
A web of trustful, inter-dependent relationships.

We will have to live with the fact, that we have an inborn tendency to exploit the circumstances for our own benefit. This is one of the most fundamental drives of the living organism, and, it became a dominant factor in the behaviour of animal existence, long before the human species came on the scene. We can only hope to modify or control this basic instinct by a set of rational and generally accepted guidelines, as well as the faculty of self-discipline, excercised by a sovereign and conscious, individual "will".

We can only overcome, or, rather, contain the effects of a strong egocentric orientation, if we recognise, clearly, its origins, strength and universal appearance in all living organisms, and, we have to be willing to analyse, thoroughly and thoughtfully, the conditions necessary to get a grip on this instinctive response to existential anxieties.

In a large and complex social environment, the contract of essential equality, together with the mechanisms of social transparence, allows us, not only, to implement, consciously, the many ramification of such a contract, but, the conditions of transparence provide us with the possibility to monitor, continuously, the details of all significant events and happenings that are taking place in society.

Unless we can convince ourselves, that the terms of the social contract are honoured by every individual and group in society, we will, inevitably, fall prey to emotions of suspicion, doubt and hostility. The success and stability of a large and complex human society is beginning to rely, increasingly, on its ability to implement such a conscious, deliberate and thoroughly understood contractual agreement between the members, as well as between the various sub-groupings that make-up society.

We have outlined, before, the reasons, why instinctive behaviour-patterns, based upon our biological heritage, are inadequate to guide the formation and maintenance of such a complex society. The mechanisms of genetic molding or programming never had a chance to formulate behaviour-patterns that were suitable for, or adapted to, the requirements of a complex and large-scale social environment. This is the reason, why it seems fair to say, that the responsibility for human viability has already shifted, a long time ago, from the genetic code to the cultural code.

However, only recently, have we come to realise what is happening, and, only now, are we beginning to form a conscious perception of these mechanisms, which have been at work for such a long time, already; ever since the majority of mankind has lived in large and complex social units.

If we are aware of the reasons for the existence of a social organisation, and, if we have acknowledged the fact, that the social organisation is an instrument to provide each member with a greater ease of existence, as well as an equal distribution of freedoms, opportunities and obligations, then, we should be able to control this seemingly irrepressible tendency to revert to egocentric attitudes. Then, we may be able to acknowledge, that such a strong tendency is stimulated by the mechanisms of anxiety. Anxiety is aroused as a result of corruption and social deterioration, because the mechanisms of social break-down negate the advantages of social integration.

The more subtle forms of social break-down, or corruption, happen, often, long before we can put our finger precisely upon the reasons, why they have taken place. We sense the occurence of injustice, secrecy and the deviation from the principles of essential equality, long before we can document them, and, one of the problems has always been the fact, that we have never learned to define, what, exactly, we need for the creation and maintenance of a just and stable society.

You may object, here, and point-out that man is not born equal, and, people do not develop in the same manner. Some people will become successful leaders, others will be followers, and, some will become misfits and outcasts. How, then, is it possible to visualise or practice a contract of essential equality, when the members of a society are just not equal?

This is correct, but, let us examine the situation a little further. In our sketch of the transition from hierarchical positioning to essential equality, we have also emphasised the idea, that this applies to the large majority of the members, but not to everyone. Undoubtedly, there will always be some people, who occupy a leadership position, but, the point is, that, people, gifted or called-upon by the circumstances to play a leadership role, do not have to find their reward in excercising power for its own sake, nor, do they have to find satisfaction in the accumulation of wealth and privileges. If a leadership is beneficial to society, this leadership will automatically receive its reward in the form of respect, loyalty, and, even, admiration or adulation.

It is true, that a small percentage of the population has trouble fitting into the social unit, and, we have outlined, before, our ideas about what to do with truly incorrigeable psychopaths. While the solution of eventual elimination seems drastic and requires, obviously, a high level of confidence in our ability to judge fairly, and diagnose correctly, we come to the conclusion, that we have no choice, but to cut-out, resolutely, any rotting sore that is festering in our society, endangering the health of other members, or the social organism as a whole.

We should not elaborate, here, on the problems of defining criminal behaviour, nor, should we discuss the methods available for coping with such inevitable by-products of the living organisation. Whenever there is normal and healthy life, there is also the occasional occurrence of an abnormality; a mal-formation, a mal-function, or, some sort of a disease process.

Sometimes, an aberration may take the form of an incorrigeable pattern of anti-social behaviour, which is criminal in nature and can be labeled as a "psychopathy". This is a personality, who has become, for one reason or another, abnormal and diseased during its development.

It is clear, that we have to be competent and extremely careful when defining the criteria and mechanisms by which to judge and correct criminal behaviour and psychopathic disease processes, because the measures necessary to correct the occurrence of criminal behaviour may have to be extremely severe, especially, when seen from the point of view of the criminal offender.

A great majority of the people in society are able, and willing, to take upon themselves the bonds of inter-dependence, and, to excercise a sense of responsibility. Leadership positions will be occupied by members of either sex, and, the level of responsibility, education, skill and hard work, necessary to function adequately in a position of leadership, will be compensated for by a justified sense of accomplishment, as well as a profound sense of gratitude from the rest of society for the services that have been rendered by concerned, competent and honest leaders.

There is no reason for any leadership-function to be shielded from public scrutiny, or, to be clothed with an aura of privilege or exemption from the law, nor, does it have to result in an extra-ordinary level of personal power and influence.

It is unavoidable, that a charismatic leader will find him- or herself in a position where each gesture, utterance or behavioural response will receive a great deal of attention and authority, but, a truly understanding and concerned leader will consider this fact of public life only an added responsibility, and, a truly concerned and competent leader will try to be utterly careful and just in his or her behavioural responses.

A good leader will always be able to control the temptation to use or abuse a position of high trust and authority for narrow egocentric gain or partisan purposes. A good leader will always use, instinctively, his or her position of authority and trust to educate the people in the value of the ethical guidelines of their culture, and, a responsible leader will also persuade the people to look beyond the boundaries of their own social environment and consider all human beings as essentially equal in their needs and aspirations, rights and obligations, tacitly acknowledging, thereby, that the time of the globally integrated society has come.

A charismatic and beneficial leader will also make gracefully place for another leader, as soon as he or she feels, that his or her usefulness as a leader has come to an end. A truly considerate leader feels an enormous responsibility in his duty to combat the ever-present temptation to revert to egocentric attitudes, because a gifted and concerned leader is fully aware of the disastrous consequences such a shift towards more primitive attitudes, will bring.

However, the responsibility for maintaining social order and justice does not rest exclusively with the leadership. No society is viable, unless the members realise, that they all have to make a contribution. Unless the members, under the guidance and inspiration of an effective and trustworthy leadership, are willing to make an effort for the good of society as a whole, the society has nothing to give-away in the form of rights.

It is not sufficient, that the members are co-erced by the powers of the law to make such a contribution. Obeying the letter of the law without understanding the need for this law, and, without giving it meaning by a sense of appreciation and cooperation, makes the law into an obstacle-course that has to be avoided, or, a tool that can be manipulated for egocentric gain.

In the final analysis, it is clear, that the law can only be effective, if a majority of the people are willing to go along with it, and, if they are willing to make an effort to understand and support the laws of society. So often, the law is eventually enforced by a small elite, which has the wealth, and the opportunity, to hire a private army. Then, a number of people sell their services to the elite, and, these people are willing to enforce unjust laws and support undeserved privileged positions, as long as they benefit themselves, and, as long as they are able to maintain their own positions of privilege and advantage.

If such a disastrous development of social polarisation takes place, the tensions rise rapidly to a boiling point, and, eventually, armed rebellion and civil war are inevitable. If the justification of the law disappears for a majority of the members of society, it becomes an empty shell, and, quickly, the law and the governing structures of society become a tool in the hands of clever opportunists.

We see, therefore, that a concentration of economic, military or legislative powers into the hands of a small elite, as well as the loss of comprehension and support for the laws of society by a majority of the people, lead, inevitably, to injustices, incidences of corruption, as well as a distortion of this all-important social contract of essential equality.

There is no substitute for a genuine understanding and support for the guiding principles of society by a large majority of its members, and, such a genuine support is only possible, if the members feel, at least intuitively, that they all can benefit from this social structure. However, such an understanding needs constant re-enforcement of the awareness, that, indeed, the foundations of society are based upon a social contract of essential equality in benefits, opportunities and obligations.

The members of society have to be able to recognise, at all times, that the economic processes, the attitudes of good-will, as well as all other conditions of existence, lead to mutual trust and a beneficial state of inter-dependence, and, they have to recognise, that the conditions of existence are based on the principle that a social organisation should, indeed, enhance the ease of existence and the standard of living for everyone.

Any development that allows a segment of society to reap most of the benefits from belonging to a social organisation, must mean, that other segments of the population have to carry a proportionally larger share of the burdens, and, this disparity must, eventually, lead to the awareness, that the lesser privileged sections of society are being exploited. While the emergence of disparities is understandable, as well as a logical result of the mechanisms that are at work in society, such a development of disparity, or polarisation, damages the cohesion of a social entity, and, eventually, it increases tensions to the point of severe disruptions.

The initial stages of such a slide towards class-differences and imbalances between privilege and contribution, are hardly noticed, and, they are often sanctioned by the structures of belief that have become prevalent. These beliefs and notions often function as instruments in the hands of the privileged classes, which are able to maintain their favourable status-quo by indoctrinating the working classes into a number of commonly accepted notions and attitudes, justifying the division of the classes and the conditions of disparity.

Eventually, questions will surface, once again, and in our times, the awareness of the basic similarities between all people, be they rich or poor, privileged or exploited, born into a rich society or an impoverished one, is sufficiently developed to let such questions rise quickly to the fore-front of our conscious awarenesses. In these days, we do not accept, any longer, a disparity between classes as evidence of an immutable social order, or, the expression of a Divine Will, nor, do we look upon these disparities as conditions no-one can change.

We see, quite rightly, that there is no theoretical objection to the idea, that every human being could live under decent conditions and circumstances, and, that everyone can be protected by a package of basic rights, but, our scope of vision and the area of concern in which we want to see such an equalisation of disparities take place, is still limited, by and large, to the society or segment of mankind we belong to or identify with.

If we are willing to make an effort to abolish a disparity or situation of injustice within our own social environment, we should also be willing to look a little further, and acknowledge the fact, that many societies and nations also exist under greatly disparaging and unjust conditions.

If we want to have as much as our richer neighbour, we should also be willing to look at our neighbour across the street, who has less than we have. We should be willing to consider the question, whether or not he has a cause to be disgruntled about us, as well as the neighbour we are comparing ourselves to, because we both may live privileged life-styles compared to his conditions across the street. We see, so often, only the injustice or disparities between ourselves and those we consider to be more privileged than ourselves.

In other words; the process of trying to solve the tensions of social injustice should not center, solely, upon our own point of view, but, in order to attack the problems of injustice, more thoroughly, and, with a measure of universal appeal, we have to look at the conditions of human existence on a global scale.

Let us come back, for a moment, to the idea, that the viability of a society depends, not only, upon the maintenance of a sense of justice between the members, but, also, on the fact, that we all have to make a contribution to this society; if we want society to regulate, effectively, the inter-actions of its members. In order to maintain a situation of justice, the society has to have a certain amount of energy and power, or, a certain amount of privileges that can be distributed amongst its members according to existing needs; whenever the conditions within a social environment tend to deviate from an optimum and just equilibrium.

These powers have to be created by the membership, and, they have to be placed at the disposal of the social leadership in the form of a variety of contributions, before such equalising or justice-restoring measures are possible.

Here, we see the concept of a "right" emerge. A right is a privilege given to all the members of society by virtue of the fact that one is an acknowledged member of this society, and, if we look at the whole complex of human rights as it has emerged in the last few decades, we see, that these rights are all conditions, or guarantees, that are provided to the members for the sake of maintaining a position of justice and essential equality. The intention of distributing or granting basic human rights to all the members of a socially integrated unit, is to create an optimum environment of existence and development for these members and, especially, for the younger members. Then, the members may experience a sense of justice and they will be content and satisfied, and, as a logical result, they will then be willing to make contributions to their society in return.

In a way, society "invests" in the individual members by giving them a variety of privileges, tolerances or allowances, especially, during the time of growing-up and finding a place within society. This gives the young adults an opportunity to become healthy and fully developed people, who have unfolded themselves according to their existential needs, capabilities and aspirations. In turn, society "expects", and, has the right to expect, a number of contributions from its members in the form of time, effort and earnings, in order to invest, once again, in the younger generations, or, to reward the older members with a measure of social security when the time of retirement has arrived.

Society also returns a measure of freedom to the individual. This freedom to make individualised decisions allows the members a measure of divergence in their development and the unfolding of their potentials, but, we, the members of a well-integrated social environment, we have to keep a watchful eye upon these individualising trends. If the patterns of individualisation become so contradictory, that the diverging and egocentric requirements of the members begin to overshadow the level of cohesion that is needed to maintain social viability, the social environment will rapidly weaken.

Whenever a society begins to weaken, it will be far less capable of ensuring justice, essential equality and efficient leadership. The confidence of the members in their society is beginning to evaporate, and, their willingness to make a contribution, or to maintain a web of trustful, inter-dependent relationships, begins to fade as well.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The fragile awareness, that human or civil rights depend on a gift from society.
The elite, and problems with leadership succession.
The sacrifices necessary for a "revolutionary correction".
The only definitive solution to the problem of competitive strife is a globally integrated society of mankind.
The balance between input and output.
A number of examples of the balance between rights and obligations; property rights, the right to know, and the right to a minimum standard of living.
The right to choose a leader.
Social entropy, and the mechanisms necessary to prevent it.
The energy spent on competitive strife has to be diverted to maintaining a condition of justice and essential equality.
The vulnerability of specialisation.
Expansionism; a natural and unavoidable result of evolutionary success and increasing population pressures.
A broad look at the requirements of essential equality.
We become vulnerable and depressed, whenever we are narrowly specialised without the means to maintain a condition of justice and essential equality.

If the demand for specific civil rights, general human rights, as well as other freedoms and privileges, begins to overshadow the awareness, that all these rights and privileges have to be given-away by the efforts of society as a whole, then, we are dealing with a society that is rapidly losing its coherence. The level of distrust is rising, productivity declines, and the efficiency of social mechanisms is deteriorating.

On the other hand, if a society regulates, dogmatically, the attitudes, outlook and behaviour-patterns of its members, a powerful elite of ideological purists comes to the fore, dominating, and, to some extent, exploiting the rest of society. Such an elite may profess to be the most ardent and faithful champions of the cultural guidelines and social ideals, but, the positions of privilege and power are surreptitiously flowing into the hands of this rigid and dogmatic elite, regardless, how egalitarian the philosophy or religion of such a society professes to be.

Besides, there are usually difficulties with the succession of leadership whenever ideological guidance-patterns are very rigid. Succession becomes a nearly lawless inter-play of intrigues, as the power-struggle follows primitive mechanisms of competitive strife. Such a power-struggle is rarely a carefully regulated process under the control of the cultural guidelines themselves. Ordinary members have little influence upon the mechanisms of leadership succession or leadership decisions, and, the level of public awareness is low. People are uneducated and the majority is being exploited and told what to do.

A review of history shows, that, time and again, dissent and resistance will, eventually, come to the fore, and, some people will take great personal risks, because they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to overthrow a rigid and elitist system of government. Then, a majority of people have given-up hope, that the leadership structure can be changed for the better by peaceful means.

In theory, the solution to the problem how to avoid the rise of a ruling elite, is not difficult. Theoretically, the subtle and surreptitious mechanisms of disparity and elite-formation can be detected and halted at an early stage of their development, before they have had a chance to entrench themselves. This is possible with the help of a truly open and efficient leadership and bureaucracy, assisted by the information gathering, sorting and retrieval techniques that have become available with the modern computer.

Ultimately, social stability can only be obtained, whenever mankind has become organised or integrated on a global scale, and every individual and sub-grouping experiences, clearly, the benefits from belonging to the society of mankind. People will then be able to see, that each and every privilege received from society is an instrument for the maintenance of justice, but, people will also be aware of the fact, that these instruments of social justice have to be maintained, and, that they will lose their effectiveness as soon as attitudes slide back towards an orientation of cynical egocentricity.

Future generations will recognise the fact, that, each right and privilege has to be earned by making a contribution. Just as the treasury needs contributions from the members in society in order to finance the programs and services for the common good, so are the privileges of individual development and the unfolding of talents and aspirations, the guarantees for decent living conditions, as well as the facilities for providing education, health and security, based upon social functions and communal services that have to be made possible and sustained by a collective effort.

If we empty the treasury without putting anything back into it, no-one is surprised to learn, that bankruptcy is unavoidable, unless we still believe, naively, that we can keep the money-presses rolling without concerning ourselves with the problem how to back-up such a currency with real value. A similar balance in the equation between rights and obligations plays a role in the maintenance of healthy attitudes and contributory relationships.

If I believe to have a right to security, I will have to assume a responsibility for making a contribution to the security of others. If I believe to have the right to know, in order to understand myself and my environment, or to allay my fears and suspicions, I will have to accept the obligation to provide information to others, and, to be open and honest in all my dealings. If I want to be trusted by others, I have to give good reasons, why others should come to the conclusion that they can trust me, and, I should be willing to take a certain risk and initiate the generation of an attitude of good-will by trusting others.

If I believe to have the right to be treated justly, I will have to be just to others, and, I have to contribute to the mechanisms of justice by actively supporting the institutions, laws, social guidelines and objectives that ensure a measure of justice for everyone. If I believe to have the right to be free from exploitation, I have the responsibility to refrain from giving-in to the temptation to exploit others, whenever an opportunity arises.

If I believe to have a right to my belongings and to be protected from theft, vandalism or robbery, I have the responsibility to ensure, that my neighbours can verify for themselves, at any time, not only, the extent of my belongings, but also, the fact, that these assets have been acquired by honest and hard work, as well as a frugal way of life. They have to be able to convince themselves that my assets have not been obtained by the exploitation of an opportunity to make a quick profit. If I have profited from someone's ignorance, weakness or dependence, I am a usurper, a parasite, a predator upon my neighbours and the other members of society, and, I should not be surprised to learn, that I have sown the seeds of hatred and distrust.

If I believe to have the right to be educated, well informed and skilled in one or other field of endeavour, I also have the obligation to use my knowledge, skills and intellectual capabilities in a way that contributes to the well-being of others.

If I use my skills and intellectual powers, solely, to carve-out a position of dominance and personal gain, to deceive people or persuade them to see things my way, I am nothing more than a parasite and a predator, living-off other people's good-will and credulity. Then, I behave like a hunting predator; not with the tearing of flesh, but, by clever deceptions and manipulations, as well as through the pernicious mechanisms of excercising power and abusing privileges.

If I believe to have the right to express my opinions, whatever they may be, I will also have an obligation to listen to the opinions of others, even if they contradict completely my own, and, if I believe, that I am absolutely right, I will have to accept the wrath and retaliation of those who think, that I am absolutely wrong.

If I believe, that I have a right to a certain standard of living, I will also have to accept the obligation to contribute an effort that is equivalent to such a standard of living, whenever I am in a position to make such a contribution. Since we go through prolonged periods in our lives when our productive capabilities are limited, (e.g., when we are young, old, or sick), we will have to accept the fact, that our contributions will have to be significantly higher than the level of our consumption, whenever we are in the fortunate position of being healthy, vigorous, employed, and on the peak of our capabilities.

If I believe, that I should have the right to influence the leadership decisions of my society, I will have to accept the possibility that some decisions will be made I can not agree with. If we want the right to have a proportional input into the leadership through an accurate feed-back of opinions, feelings and electoral choices, we will also have to accept the obligation to accept a majority decision that went against our personal preferences and beliefs.

It is clear, therefore, that any concept of "civil rights" is meaningless, if we forget or ignore the fact, that we form, collectively, the society in which we live, and, that this society has to provide us with these rights and opportunities. Collectively, we have to contribute to society in order to create the possibility for this society to extend the rights and privileges that have been given as basic human or civil rights.

This is such a basic equation, that it ranks with the fundamental balance of energy relationships in the mechanisms of nature. Just as matter-energy can not come from nothing, so can society not exist, nor can it give anything away, unless the collective efforts of its members have created the possibility that something can be given-away.

Just as a cell requires, constantly, a certain flow of energy through its protoplasm in order to fight the entropy of its biochemical components, so have the members of a society the continuous obligation to contribute, effectively, a certain portion of their productive energies to the social environment in order to prevent the mechanisms of social entropy. Only, then, is it possible for society to fight the ever-present tendency towards social disorder and chaos, which is an inherent result of the contradictory needs of the members of society.

Just as the survival of a cell depends on the fact, that individual biochemical reactions have found a greater level of viability when clustered together, so is the survival of a social unit only possible, as long as its members realise, and acknowledge, the fact, that their existence is more difficult and hazardous in isolation than grouped-together.

Let us look at these trade-offs a little more in detail. We have argued, several times, now, that the process of inter-dependence and task-differentiation is essential for the formation of a social unit. The processes of mutual reliance and task-differentiation change, not only, the conditions from a competitive mode of existence to a symbiotic one, but, the crux of the change can be grasped by pointing-out, that, in a competitive mode of existence, competition for the available energy-supplies places an extra burden upon the search for a livelyhood, while in the symbiotic mode the energy required to exist should be less than a solitary existence that may or may not be burdened by the energy-requirements of competitive strife.

From a situation, where an additional amount of energy is needed to fight-off a competitor, the development of task-differentiaton and specialisation in function should lessen the requirements for energy expenditure to below those of solitary existence because of a simplification of the chores of survival.

In a multi-cellular organism the level of inter-dependence reaches, quickly, such a stage of complexity, that it becomes necessary for a cellular member of this social unit to exist, continuously and exclusively, within this particular symbiotic relationship.

We have discussed these ideas on many different occasions, because we see essentially the same mechanisms take place in all socially integrated units of existence; the biochemical relationships of protoplasmic symbiosis, as well as multi-cellular and multi-individual relationships within social units.

As a human being, we have a varied and somewhat contradictory biological heritage, because we have inherited a long evolutionary development, emphasising the supreme importance of our individual existence, which is the common goal of survival for the many billions of cells that make-up our physical existence. In addition, we have a biological package of instructions that has been developed during a much shorter period of secondary socialisation of behaviourally flexible mammals and anthropoids. This biological trend, or heritage, emphasises the need for cooperation and inter-dependence between large, complex, multi-cellular individuals, and, these behavioural instructions have to override, at least, to some extent, the strongly egocentric orientation of the instincts of individual survival.

Because of these strongly contradictory elements in our instinctive behavioural portrait, it is wise to question, whether or not it is indeed advisable to let ourselves slide towards a rapid development of near-total inter-dependence in social relationships. Is it really advisable to become so dependent upon the mechanisms of social inter-dependence, that we have difficulties sustaining our viability, whenever we are called-upon to carry-out a much greater range of the chores of survival?

The answer is no; at least, not without a few important qualifications or preconditions. From an early stage in the history of human existence, we have seen, that a position of dependence upon others leads, quickly, to a condition of enslavement. The more powerful segments of a society of human beings will quickly abuse their position of dominance and begin to exploit the weaker segments.

If people let themselves become dependent for their security, income, as well as the many chores of survival, upon a powerful and wealthy elite, they become, by definition, enslaved to this elite. People lose, then, the ability to withdraw from this sphere of dominance, and, we have, once again, sketched the mechanisms of class-divergence and exploitation.

After the fertile areas of the earth had been populated, the ability to withdraw from society and start again, from scratch, in a process of "social splitting", became severely limited. The skill and attitudes of self-reliance and self-sufficiency disappeared from major parts of the population of large and complex societies, and, people became entrapped, because they had lost the opportunity to go somewhere else. The mechanisms of "moving-out", away from the sphere of dominance and oppression, required an amount of energy that equalled or surpassed the energy needed to rebel and overthrow a tyrannical regime.

If a large society became powerful and dominant over its neighbouring societies, the possibility for a natural "over-flow" or expansion into adjacent territories was restored, at least, to some extent, and, this method of defusing the tensions associated with high population densities has been used throughout history. However, the mechanisms of expansion into neighbouring territories could not be accomplished without serious strife, and, often, a desperate resistance of those, who were about to lose their freedom and independence.

A successful society always enlarged its sphere of influence, and, often, its territorial boundaries as well, in order to provide an outlet for the growth-pressures of its expanding and expansive population.

From the many examples in history, which are now available to us for study and reflection, it is obvious, that the processes of inter-dependence in the human societies have always led, quite quickly, to severe social tensions. On the one hand, we see, that the level of dependence becomes rapidly unequal, where a great majority becomes dependent upon the protection and employment provided by a small elite. At the same time, this elite becomes dependent upon the labours of the workers to maintain their positions of power, wealth and privilege.

It is clear, that, an inequality in inter-dependence, standards of living, as well as input into the affairs of society, quickly annuls the benefits of belonging to society for many if not most of the members. As soon as the sense of justice becomes severely affronted, and, as soon as the beliefs and attitudes sanctioning a status-quo of social polarisation, are questioned and begin to disappear, frustrations mount, and, sooner or later, a significant force for revolutionary change will make its presence felt. This means, that we have never been able, as yet, to develop a level of social coherence and a mode of inter-dependence that is stable and harmonious for a prolonged period of time.

The criteria of viability for the larger social structure, as well as the necessary attitudes for a state of social integration, are so tentative, so transient, and, so haphazard, that most of us still can not acknowledge the concept, that a social organism is a real entity of living existence. The large society is such a sluggish organism, so poorly organised, so haphazardly governed, so inefficient in its leadership and bureaucratic functions, that most of us refuse to acknowledge the reality of such a supra-individual unit of social organisation.

Yet, if we analyse to what extent we rely upon the bonds of inter-dependence, in particular, in our modern and affluent societies, we see, clearly, how most of us, especially, in urban and sub-urban areas, would be severely handicapped, if the social mechanisms would break-down to any significant extent. How dependent have we become on the energy-supplies of electricity, heating-oil or gasoline, or, on the supply of water, the availability of food, as well as all sorts of consumer items we buy in the stores and shopping centers of these affluent giants?

How dependent are we upon this most important source of consumable energy; our pay-cheque? Without it, we can not pay our rent, our car-payments, our food, as well as all the other things we need or think we need. Without this regular cash-income we would be in real trouble!

As usual, we, ordinary working people, who are in the majority in each and every society, we have let ourselves become extremely dependent upon these mechanisms of social inter-dependence, but, at the same time, this dependence has resulted in a severe loss of power. Whenever we are beginning to lose confidence in these social mechanisms, or, as soon as we are becoming aware of the fact, that we are being exploited, we realise, that we have lost the ability to escape the bonds of enslavement that have been woven around us. Often, we have spun these bonds of enslavement ourselves because of our ignorance and lack of concern.

Yet, we frequently fail to realise, that we have contributed, at least tacitly or passively, to these mechanisms of entrapment, because we have let ourselves get into a situation of indebtedness and financial dependence. We fail to see the significance, or, rather, the insignificance of our existence in the overall happenings of this complex and affluent society, and, we are desperately trying to get as much money as we can, without the insight, that we have to be able to make a real contribution in exchange for the earnings we expect to receive.

In our anxiety and confusion, we are slowly pressured into a defensive attitude of egocentricity, frantically trying to safeguard ourselves, while having lost the opportunity to do so efficiently, when we were still young, healthy, and making a good income. Now it is too late, and the feeling that we are being exploited, and, that our job opportunities are crumbling, only leads to a dull awareness of the fact, that we have squandered most of our chances.

Even, if our personal situation is relatively secure, and, even, if we are able to look more objectively at the mechanisms that are taking place around us in our social environment, we come to the depressive conclusion, that our governments have, for decades now, only been reacting to crises, blindly feeling and groping their way around the many problems. We are beginning to realise, as soon as this large-scale perspective begins to unfold itself for our eyes, that the real long-term solutions require a drastic change in our habits and social organisation, and, we become aware of the fact, that we may not survive such radical changes.

The feeling of entrapment intensifies, because, if long-term survival means chaos and destruction for our particular way of life, we may as well continue as long as possible on the same road. What is the meaning of a "cure" for the ills of society, if a more permanent solution to our social problems, means, that we are going to lose the ability to survive during this painful transition period of social re-organisation?

.......

Chapter 4

Content

A review of the mechanisms of inter-dependence.
An outline of practical measures to ensure a condition of social health.
Why it is important to maintain a measure of independence, whenever we can.
The value of remaining "pluri-potential".
The virtues of a state of near self-sufficiency.
The rise of labour-unions.
Society is often held hostage in labour disputes.
The right to strike is a weapon that is becoming socially destructive, creating injustice rather than solving it.
Society, and the law of the jungle.
An isolated crime may be the result of stress, or a violent outburst of emotional tensions.
The "under-world" of a complex, free-enterprise society.
Ambivalent attitudes and practices.
We can not tamper with the ideas and ideals of justice.

The discussion of the preceding pages is an introduction to the idea, that we have to be very careful and vigilant, whenever we allow ourselves to become dependent upon other people. While inter-dependencies are essential for the mechanisms of social integration, we can also argue, that some inter-dependencies develop as a result of the natural inclination to look for easy, short-term solutions. These solutions are likely to become short-lived, self-limiting and tension-generating bonds of enslavement or entrapment.

The only way we can avoid the development of unnecessary dependencies, based on lazy attitudes and a lack of foresight, is to become aware of the factors leading to mutually beneficial relationships of a symbiotic nature. We have to understand, that there is always a trend towards parasitic or predatory forms of inter-dependence, as soon as there is an inequality in strength between inter-dependent members.

If one party becomes much stronger than the other, the relationship changes from a contract between equals to a dictatorship. The stronger party becomes a parasite, dictating the terms of inter-dependence and exploiting the resources of the weaker party, which has become powerless to do anything about it.

If we keep in mind the ever-present tendency for a relationship of inter-dependence to slide into a position of inequality, dominance and exploitation, we will have accomplished the first major step in our efforts to design a large-scale social organisation with the potential to remain just, stable and viable for a prolonged period of time.

In addition to keeping a watchful eye upon the power relationships between inter-dependent parties, we should also examine the possibilities for slowing-down the trend towards a state of inter-dependence. An individual, who refuses to become completely dependent upon the products or services of his neighbours, retains a status of independence representing a measure of power, and, such a status of independence may have many other benefits as well. A measure of self-sufficiency and independence makes an individual far less susceptible to the mechanisms of exploitation, because this individual can say "no", at any time, to those who provide him or her with products or services. This individual can say; "you can keep your products and services. I do not need you. I am not willing to pay the price you are asking for your products and services, or, I am not satisfied with their quality".

A retardation of the process of inter-dependence also slows-down the mechanisms of entrapment, as well as the development of widely diverging power relationships. The measure of freedom that is retained by those, who refuse to become completely dependent upon an exchange of goods and services, provides an excellent outlet for frustrations, as well as a source of versatility and adaptability. These qualities gain even more significance, whenever a social system begins to crumble, and, when people lose, gradually, the ability to rely upon others for most of their basic necessities.

Of course, such an attitude of fierce independence is looked-upon with suspicion and envy, especially, by those, who are entrapped, because these strongly independent attitudes go so strongly against the prevailing current or trend, that those, who practice these independent attitudes and ways of life, become somewhat isolated from the large majority.

However, there are other advantages associated with a refusal to be drawn, so completely and irrevocably, into a situation of dependence. The qualities of versatility and flexibility are an essential part of our biological heritage, and, they reflect the pluri-potentiality of our origins. This versatility provides the essential possibility to adapt, individually, to changing circumstances, but, it also provides the social environment with a nucleus for adaptation and regeneration, especially, after the break-down of a social organisation that was unable to keep pace with the required rate of change.

A measure of independence and self-reliance provides the individual with an important sense of confidence and self-esteem, but, it may also lead to a stubborn attitude of isolation and a reduced willingness to contribute to the requirements of social well-being.

A state of relative independence allows a nearly self-sufficient individual to observe and reflect, more objectively, about the society he lives in, but, we have to acknowledge, here, a danger as well. If one over-estimates one's capabilities for being self-sufficient, the living conditions will rapidly deteriorate to a position of enslavement to the chores of survival. Then, a feeling of frustration will re-emerge. There is no time to think, and, those, who exist so much easier by relying upon a variety of mechanisms of inter-dependence, will become a target of envy.

Once again, we come to the conclusion, that the optimum state of existence is a compromise between contradictory force-fields. The individual takes from the social system those services that greatly enhance his ease of existence, but he refuses to be drawn into a state of slavery by unthinkingly giving-in to the temptation to consume all sorts of unnecessary goods and services that only serve to enslave him in a web of financial obligations and psychological dependencies.

We have discussed the need for regulatory mechanisms to obtain a condition of social stability and well-being, and, we have emphasised the conditions that ensure a state of essential equality and universal justice. In order to maintain these conditions of social well-being, it is obvious, that we have to regulate the power relationships for the many and varied forms of inter-dependence that develop within a social structure.

Let us look at the following example. The legitimate need for labour-unions to organise themselves into powerful bargaining units was slowly recognised and accepted as a result of the social changes brought-about by the Industrial Revolution. These needs arose from the fact, that significant inequalities in power relationships between employer and employee led, quickly, to an exploitation of the much weaker employee. Today, however, we have to re-examine and rethink the results and objectives of the labour-unions, which have become remarkably successful and powerful. We have to question, seriously, whether or not the tools of collective bargaining and the weapon of the "strike" against an employer, and, especially, against a large segment of the public, are still legitimate tools for the advancement of justice.

We have to ask ourselves, whether or not the tools and weapons of the collective work-stoppage are endangering the ideals and objectives of the social contract of essential equality, because the concepts and mechanisms of the social contract of essential equality are playing an increasingly important role in our modern societies. The grouping-together of the workers into labour-unions was the only way an imbalance in power relationships between employers and their workers could be restored, before there was effective social legislation to accomplish these same objectives. Public opinion as well as the legislatures of industrialising societies were slow to recognise the basic injustices that had sprung-up as a result of these unequal relationships in economic powers.

However, un unbridled continuation of the momentum towards the accumulation of power into the hands of labour-unions, led also to distortions in the balance of power; this time in an opposite direction. If we look at the strike or industrial action, which a powerful labour-union can carry-out against the public or the functions of the State, it becomes clear, that a small segment of the population is now able to hold the rest of society to ransom by virtue of the fact, that it can cripple an essential government service or social function.

If we fail to recognise the fact, that such a development is unjust, and, that it is, in essence, just as much an abuse of power as the exploitation of labour, practiced at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution by unscrupulous and ignorant entrepreneurs, we are just as blind, and just as slow to perceive the emergence of a new form of injustice as the public and the legislators during the earlier periods of industrial development.

If the people in society, including those who are organised into labour-unions, are constantly exposed to consumerist propaganda, rising expectations, an inflated or devalued currency, as well as a crumbling respect for social institutions, we see, that the various segments of society begin to revert back to primitive, narrow-minded and egocentric attitudes. The awareness, that, together, we can maintain ourselves better and easier, is then obscured, because cultural and legislative guidelines are beginning to lose their meaning. Laws become perverted to tools for the clever and the rich, and, the laws and regulations become obstacles to be avoided and circumvented by those, who try to find a "living" in anti-social and essentially criminal activities.

The right to strike is a weapon of force, used by those who are powerful. This is similar to the practice of using the laws of a corrupt society to obtain advantages and privileges by a powerful elite. The strike obtains its power from the fact, that most citizens have developed a measure of dependence upon a variety of services and products, and, here again, we see, that, a dependence with an unequal relationship of power leads to exploitation and abuse.

We do not have to elaborate the potential for mistrust and hatred generated by the practice of striking against the citizens of society, in particular, if the people fail to see any justification for such a strike. Certainly, there is, by and large, a practical awareness on the part of those who organise and manage work-stoppages, that, in the final analysis, a thoroughly frustrated public will, eventually, react through its legislative bodies. However, the public reacts slowly and sluggishly, and, long before the public learns to cope effectively with this process of public hostage-taking, the damage has been done, and, the attitudes of mistrust, cynicism and egocentricity have been inflamed.

Every time a segment of society is able to enhance its position of power or income by holding the public to ransom, the average people have to foot the bill, and, this means, that the average individual has, once again, been robbed of a part of his standard of living.

It is naive to think, that an injustice can still be corrected with the crude weapon of a strike against the community, and, it is even more naive to fail to recognise the injustice and resentment generated by such primitive power-tactics. It is naive to believe, that a leadership can continue to convince the people to work harder, sacrifice more, or adopt attitudes of trust and cooperation, if the people are exposed, time and again, to the effects of a power-struggle between giant interests, as well as the chaotic inertia of an inefficient and top-heavy bureaucracy.

The problem is, that the public, the average people who are confused, leaderless and at odds with their neighbours, lack the ability to coordinate their dissent and frustrations effectively, and, they tend to coalesce into small, militant and narrow-minded, special-interest groupings, while a few of them may be swallowed-up by the world of organised or unorganised crime.

If a member of society grows-up in an environment, where the law of the jungle prevails, where the exploitation of unequal power relationships is considered to be a normal practice for the maintenance of personal viability, it is not surprising to see, that, such an individual tends to gravitate towards an environment, where such practices are indeed commonly accepted. While an isolated criminal activity may be the result of emotional stress, a violent outburst, or a temporary weakness of character, exploiting an opportunity for theft or unfair advantage-taking, an organised criminal act is a consistent and deliberate attempt to exploit human dependencies and weaknesses with cold-blooded ruthlessness.

An individual can enslave himself, not only, to the banks or the finance institutions, whenever he lives beyond his means, but, he can also be exploited by another individual or organisation, whenever he engages in activities or practices that are shameful, illegal or corrupt. Gambling, prostitution, the use of, and traffic in, drugs, as well as all sorts of protection-rackets are activities that have been made possible by becoming enslaved to a variety of weaknesses and bad habits, and, the extortion of protection monies is encouraged, whenever a society fails to provide adequate security to all its citizens, regardless, where they live.

The crux of the matter is the fact, that, all organised criminal activities abuse an injustice or inequality in power relationships to extort monies. Sometimes, these inequalities in the relationships of power are carefully cultivated, before they can be exploited. This, of course, is the essence of a situation of "blackmail", or spying. In the latter situation, we see, how unethical practices and shameful situations are ruthlessly exploited by leaderships for the sake of protecting "national security", or advancing "legitimate national interests". What is usually considered to be a criminal and despicable act, becomes, suddenly, an act of "patriotic duty".

Let us face it; in essence, there is no difference between organised crime, exploiting the weaknesses of other citizens in society, and the methods of spying and blackmail, grouped-together as "intelligence" or "counter-intelligence", whenever suspicious communities are struggling with each other in a ruthless and lawless manner. Neither is there any difference between the open exploitation of societies by a strongly dominating alien power, and the exploitation or extortion practiced by a powerful, predatory force within society. The only difference is the scale in which deceit and exploitation are being carried-out; against an individual, a small grouping, or an entire society.

On previous occasions, we have outlined, how the ambiguities of cultural, ethnic and social boundaries, as well as other limitations in our ethical outlook, allow us to view essentially similar practices as, either, criminal and despicable, or, as patriotic and virtuous.

Once again, we see the reasons, why the definition and practice of justice can not be centered around the interests of a particular society, a specific segment of society, or a small elite. Justice can only exist within a stable and durable social unit of global dimensions, where the sense of justice is satisfied for a great majority of human beings. Only, then, can we come effectively to grips with the problems of maintaining an essential equality in living standards and power relationships. Only, then, will we be able to construct a social system, that will not decay, so quickly and inevitably, into chaos, misery and suffering.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

A detailed analysis of rights and obligations.
The need for an objective and competent standard of judgement.
Resisting the temptation to be manipulative and fraudulent.
Confused and vulnerable heirs to a defective culture.
The right to know, and the obligation to understand.
The right to be protected from abuse, libel and exploitation.
A high-quality product of knowledge and information.
Manipulations by commercial interests.
The right to know represents the right to question and the obligation to tell.
Why we need an inventory of people; a profile of each personality, with all its activities and capabilities, weaknesses and past history.
The question of privacy.
A system of transparent living conditions, protected by checks and balances.
Learning to behave when under close, constant scrutiny.
Enormous ramifications.
The tendency to behave fraudulently.
The importance of monitoring, effectively, everything that is happening within society.
The right to privacy is the right to relax and to be free from stress; at least, for a significant part of our existence.
The need to digest impressions and learn new things.
The obligation to contribute, whenever we are vigorous and healthy, and, the right to relax, whenever we need a rest.

We need guidelines for creating and maintaining a healthy social environment. These guidelines have to regulate human behaviour within a carefully specified range of tolerances, designed to maintain an optimum equilibrium between dependence and independence, specialisation and versatility, social cohesion and individual differentiation, agreement and dissent.

Only, if we are able to give each citizen of the world a sense of belonging, together with the insight, that, ultimately, survival depends upon a measure of cooperation and inter-dependence within a framework of just and essentially equal social relationships, only then, will we be able to chart, collectively, an effective course for continued human existence. Such an insight includes a clear understanding of the relationships between rights and obligations, between input and output, between gain and price, between benefit and contribution.

The right to know is, not only, coupled to an obligation to divulge information, but, the right to be informed, honestly and completely, is linked to the obligation to inform others in an honest and comprehensive manner. If we use the powers of information and persuasion with the intention to cause a specific effect; to create a specific opinion that will be, in one way or another, to our advantage, we are, in essence, committing a fraud. Then, we use knowledge and persuasion as a tool to induce a specific attitude, and, we have to look upon such practices with grave concerns, even, if the objective is not narrowly egocentric.

As leaders of a social environment, we should refrain from manipulating deliberately the opinions of our citizens and young people, even, if we are primarily concerned with the objective of awakening in our citizens a sense of awareness and responsibility. If we want to emphasise a sense of responsibility and awareness, we should openly say so, and, we should argue the points that make it convincing, why such an attitude is important. We should not try to present information in such a way, that a specific, for us desirable opinion or attitude is generated towards a particular subject of concern, or object of information.

We know, that it is impossible not to be biased by an opinion that happens to be current, and, which is considered to be the best possible view-point under the circumstances. Such an un-intentional bias can only be judged by future generations, and, it is, not only, unavoidable, but, such a bias should become a current standard of competence, since it represents the culmination of our best and most sincere efforts to come to an honest and complete evaluation of the situation as it exists at a particular time.

Any attempt to deviate, deliberately, from a high standard of objectivity, and, any drive to alter the information and judgement given to the people for the sake of a particularly desirable effect, has to be rejected as manipulative and fraudulent. If a subject is controversial, confusing and complex, let us work hard at making the exposition of such a subject as clear and as concise as possible, but, any attempt to suppress contradictory evidence or arguments, can only lead to an impoverishment of thought, and, it constitutes an essential bias or incompleteness of information that will hinder a realistic analysis, as well as a refined response.

Let us not forget, that, we may, now, be occupying a position of leadership, and, we may consider ourselves to be the guardians of our culture, as well as the epitomy of wisdom and understanding, but, tomorrow, another generation will have to lead the community through this complex maze of existential problems. If we try to mold the future generations in a particular pattern of behaviour, anticipating what they will need, we are likely to make it more difficult for them to find the appropriate answers, especially, if it turns-out that our predictions and anticipations were wrong.

If we give future generations our best possible and most accurate analyses, as well as our most honest and complete evaluations, we leave them the best possible cultural heritage upon which they can build their own perceptions of reality, and, formulate their own responses to the existential pressures they have to deal with.

The right to know includes the right to be honestly and completely informed about our leadership, as well as the many leadership structures that function and exert their influence upon society. This includes the right to know, if, and when, our leaders are not sure and are considering a range of options. We have a right to receive the best possible assessment of contemporary problems in interpretation or manipulation, and, this includes the discussion and consideration of alternatives, before a consensus is reached about the best possible assessment or course of action.

We have a right to be educated in the techniques of careful scrutiny and evaluation, and, we have a duty to learn all we can in this field. Then, we will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the criteria of selection and interpretation that lie behind the information that is available to us. We have a right to know, what is not known, and, what is still a matter of hypothesis and debate.

We, citizens of an evolving global society, who are also members of our established local communities, we all have a duty to work hard at understanding, as fully as we can, the information that is available all around us. We have a duty to understand the facts of our existential conditions in as broad a framework of conceptual relationships as is possible. We have a duty to learn, how to be objective and reasonable.

We have to learn, how to look at a series of ideas and concepts from all sides; from all possible angles, including the view-point of our adversaries. We have a duty to ask questions in order to broaden our understanding, but, we should also accept the right of others to ask us questions, whenever someone is trying to inform himself about our perception of reality, or the manner in which we conduct ourselves.

We do not have to be ashamed, whenever we notice short-comings in our level of understanding, and, we should be willing to correct these short-comings to the best of our abilities, but, we also have the right to be protected from abuse and egocentric practices, if, and when, we submit ourselves to scrutiny by other people.

We will have to accept the fact, that, the ability to understand varies from one individual to the next, just as we all have differing aptitudes and interests. We will have to be careful not to misguide or manipulate those, who look to us for guidance, and, who are willing to believe, unquestionably, whatever we tell them. We have to make sure, that these people receive a high-quality product of knowledge and information, even, if they have difficulties recognising the value of what they are receiving.

It is, therefore, necessary for this entire field of communications, including the dissemination of information, the process of scrutiny, as well as the collection and classification of information, to be guided by a set of well thought-out Constitutional Guidelines.

The blatant attempts to manipulate opinion and attitudes by contemporary commercial interests, the lobbies and special-interest groups of our contemporary societies, as well as the haphazard and chaotic political programs of today, will be looked at with amazement by future generations. They will shake their heads over the lack of insight, the misconceptions, as well as the hazardous and essentially blind trials and errors of human endeavour, and, they will see, much more clearly than we can see today, how close mankind came to a fatal level of chaos and confusion.

On the other hand, a clear understanding of the mistakes and experiments of the past will help these future generations to remain aware of the reasons behind these Constitutional Guidance structures with their many cultural regulators, and, then, the perplexing problems of quickly fading cultural guidelines will have been overcome, at least, to a large extent.

Only, if we can feel, and understand, with honesty and clarity of thought, the many reasons, why a society exists, and, why it has such a large number of guidelines, safeguards and regulations, (together with a large number of carefully balanced compromises between individual aspirations and collective needs), only then, can the living generations of mankind continue to secure their individual and collective viability.

The right to know is synonymous with the right to question, and, this means, that, each individual should have the right of access to all information; not only information that has been collected for general use, but, also, all information that has a relevance for the relationships between individual people. The obligation to divulge information means, that each individual has the responsibility to provide accurate and complete information to all questions asked.

Does this mean, then, that everyone is obliged to divulge his or her most intimate thoughts, wishes, resentments, frustrations, instincts and desires? In a way, the answer is yes, since it is important for society to have a complete profile of the personality, activities and capabilities of each individual.

Before we shrink back in horror from such an invasion of privacy, which many of us consider to be an inalienable human right, we should also point-out, that, one of the consequences of such a philosophy of universal transparence in inter-human relations, is the existence of safeguards against the exploitation of information. Since all information and activities will be accessible to everyone, any suspicion of an abuse of knowledge and information can be checked immediately, provided, of course, that these safeguards are functioning well.

Obviously, the development of computer-banks with all sorts of information, including the personality profiles of the members of society, has to be carefully balanced with the development of information retrieval systems allowing each citizen to investigate possible abuses of information.

The right to know, as well as the obligation to disclose, does not have to lead to anxious feelings of defensiveness or discomfort about living in a "glass cage", without any privacy, but, such a system, properly balanced by checks and carefully designed for equality of access, may foster a great deal of trust and confidence, and, such a system of transparent information about all our individual and collective needs, will also delineate, precisely, the needs for relaxation, privacy and individual variability.

The point is, that, any form of behaviour we are not ashamed of, does not have to be secret, and, if we find ourselves in a position that we are ashamed of what we do or would like to do, we have to ask ourselves, why we are so strongly motivated, or, so strongly driven, into such a behaviour-pattern. It may be, that we have been the victim of imbalances or injustices during our formative years, which have warped and distorted our personality. These distortions may make it difficult for us to accept the social guidelines that protect us all, including those, who have difficulties adjusting to a particular set of cultural guidelines.

The ramifications of the right to know are enormous, and, they extend into the realm of justice, inter-dependence, trust, education, as well as the possibilities for a balanced judgement and a deep understanding for the existence of all living existence, especially our own. We will also discuss other rights, and, these rights, too, will reveal many similar ramifications. We are becoming aware of the fact, that the concepts of rights and obligations go back to the concepts about human existence itself.

Central to the various rights and obligations we may want to bestow upon each other, are the conditions of a satisfied sense of justice, an essential equality in conditions of existence and opportunities for development, as well as the many problems associated with the question, how to correct and prevent fraudulent tendencies and deviations from an optimum equilibrium.

In one form or another, fraud is always a violation of the cultural regulators, where a position of responsibility, or a condition of trust, is perverted for an opportunistic, egocentric gain. The right to be protected against fraud is, therefore, linked to the obligation to refrain from fraud. With the help of the attitudes of concern and understanding, it should be possible to control such impulses in the future, especially, when our sense of justice is well satisfied, and, our frustrations are generally more manageable than they are now in our confused and lawless societies of greed and affluence.

Let us not make the mistake to attribute fraudulent tendencies only to those people we do not like, because such an erroneous attitude only contributes to an elitist division between "we" and "they". Besides, we should have learned, by now, that it is totally irrealistic to see any individual as a personification or symbol of a specific human trait, regardless, whether it is a trait we admire or despise.

Understanding and insight will show us, that we all are, in essence, a conglomerate of numerous contradictory force-fields and tendencies, and, that it is almost always a matter of chance-contacts, whether we become a well-integrated, contributing member of society, or an alienating, parasitic egocentrist, who has been frustrated and wounded so often, that he or she is unable to understand the meaning and benefits of belonging to a social unit.

The right to be protected from fraud and fraudulent practices will go a long way to prevent the formation of a warped and scarred personality, and, the problems of a defensive egocentricity should be easier to manage, if we understand its mechanisms and effectively prevent the wounding of the sense of justice for a large number of people. In this way, we can prevent the formation of an imbalanced, defective or biased perception of reality.

Again, it becomes obvious, that we can not hope to begin the task of supervising all human personality developments in order to prevent incidences of injustice and fraud, unless we are in a position to monitor effectively, instantly and completely, everything that is happening within a society. How can we protect the sense of justice, unless we know, how, why, and where, this sense of justice has been violated?

There will still be a right to privacy, but, it may be more accurate to define this right to privacy as a right to be free from certain demands or stresses, at least, at certain, specified times. We have the right to be free, during specified periods of our existence, from the legitimate demands which society may make upon us. Society has the right, as well as the obligation, to collect the contributions from its able and performing citizens, but, citizens have the right to maintain their state of health and well-being with appropriate periods of rest and relaxation, in order to better contribute to the needs of society.

There is the simple biological fact, that, any organism needs periods of sleep and rest, in order to regenerate its powers of existence, as well as its potential to contribute to society.

This concept should be expanded, however, beyond the definition of allowing an individual a place to sleep and rest. Many people, and, certainly, those with an inclination to think and reflect, also need time to think and digest their impressions; to pursue avenues of interest, to study and read, to listen to music, or, to engage in sports and other activities that are a relaxation and a pleasure.

Individual members have the right to experience a certain amount of pleasurable activities, as well as adequate periods of rest, but, here again, such a right is obtained at the price of contributing, during other periods of one's existence, to the rights of pleasure and leisure for other people.

Every right has to be funded with an investment of hard work and an honest contribution, and, the rights of rest and recreation are no exception. In the rights of rest, leisure and recreation, we have to consider, always, the price such a right exacts from others. Are the pleasures of someone an infringement upon the basic rights of others? Are the benefits of rest, security and shelter equitably distributed, or, do we see subtle differences in privilege emerge from the distribution of these rights, or, from the activities carried-out during leisure-time or recreational endeavours?

All these questions require constant scrutiny and thought, and, they become an integral part of the monitoring processes that have to be carried-out in every social environment. Certainly, what we do in our leisure-time, how much leisure privileges we have, and in what sort of shelter, affluence and comfort we can relax and regenerate ourselves, all these questions are legitimate concerns or topics of interest for other people, and, we all have an obligation to provide answers and information.

The right to know, to be protected from fraud, as well as the right to rest and relaxation, are all inter-twined, and, these rights and their inevitable obligations reveal a useful way of looking at the requirements for individual and collective existence.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Life needs "work", or energy, to maintain itself.
Independence requires general knowledge and a large range of activities.
Diverging power-relationships.
A balancing act.
An equitable distribution of "stress".
Tax; the obligation to contribute in time, effort and products.
It can be highly satisfying and stimulating to contribute to society.
The naive hope, that competitive strife leads to social health.
Stimulating personal developments and initiatives through a range of freedoms and encouragements, rather than through competitive strife.
The right to be meaningfully employed by society.
A warning against too early a specialisation.
The need to remain flexible, for as long as possible.
Personal and social goals may co-incide, to a large extent.
The concept of an "optimum equilibrium".
The right to value for money.
The function of money, and the problems associated with a devaluating currency.

As we have outlined on many occasions, the maintenance of existence at all levels of the living organisation, from a single cell to a complex society of multi-cellular human beings, requires energy, or work. Work is energy, but, in the concept of work, we usually think about a specific activity, which a human being or group of people is engaged in.

Work may take the form of a contribution to a larger social environment from which the individual receives a sustenance in return, or, it may represent a series of activities to maintain individual or small-scale collective existence, when dealing with the pressures exerted by the local environment. The more an individual or a small group has become integrated into a larger social organisation, the more specialised this work or contribution becomes, and, the more one begins to rely upon an exchange of services to satisfy existential requirements.

As a corollary, we see, that a greater degree of independence requires a larger range of activities to maintain existence, and, we have pointed-out, how, and why, it is far easier to carry-out only one specific aspect of the range of existential chores, rather than all of them, provided, of course, that one can, indeed, rely upon the complementary contributions from other members.

We have discussed the trend towards a divergence in power relations as the members begin to carry-out different tasks and specialised functions. There is always the possibility, that, a member, or a small segment of the population, becomes more powerful than the rest and starts to exploit the other members, while developing a parasitic dependence upon the labours of those, who are being exploited.

It is possible to avoid such a disruptive divergence in power relations, provided, that we recognise, clearly, the mechanisms at work. We also have to recognise the fact, that we have to create the monitoring and corrective mechanisms that are necessary to prevent such a slide into class-divisions from the beginning.

We are dealing, here, clearly, with a balancing act, since we are dealing, in essence, with an unstable equilibrium. Just as we need to watch with vigilance, and correct each deviation immediately whenever we balance an upright pole on the tip of a finger, so do we need to monitor constantly, and correct immediately, any divergence in the power relationships within a social environment. This requires alertness and energy, and, this activity becomes a part of the contribution each member has to make to society in order to maintain a state of health and well-being.

There must, therefore, be a certain demand upon the time, efforts and capabilities of every member, but, each member has the right to expect, that these demands are fairly and equitably distributed, so that each individual contributes according to his or her capabilities. This would ensure an equality in the distribution of the burdens of stress, especially, if we define stress, here, not only, as a certain pressure upon the optimum equilibrium of an individual, but, also, as the capability to tolerate the social demands for work and contribution.

Someone who is healthy, vigorous and resilient, will be able to tolerate a far greater level of stress than someone, who is old, fragile and sick, and, who is, therefore, less resilient. It is a fair principle to distribute the stress of a work-load in such a way, that the level of discomfort experienced is more or less the same, because, this means, that a similar degree of pressure or stress is experienced by everyone.

"Work" can, therefore, be defined as an obligatory contribution in time and effort, (or, the equivalent in "tax", representing a monetary value, as well as a certain amount of time and effort), which an individual has to contribute to the maintenance of social cohesion and viability. However, making a contribution is not necessarily a stressful experience. Nearly everyone can be motivated, under the proper circumstances, or, by study and reflection, to recognise the satisfaction of the ability to channel one's energies and vitality into a socially beneficial contribution.

The goals of long-term ambitions and personal fulfilment begin to coincide with the requirements of social well-being. The unfolding of many specialised skills, the development of knowledge, or artistic and technological expertise, can function as an objective for satisfying self-fulfilment, as well as making a worthwhile contribution to society.

Here, too, we come to the conclusion, that we need a process of careful monitoring, as well as the ability to correct deviations from a desirable mode of development, otherwise, such a happy congruence between collective needs and individual ambitions begins to disappear in a morass of frustrations and cynicism.

The search for a personal fortune, or a foundation of power and privilege, can, by definition, not coincide with a socially constructive objective, but, the philosophy of free-enterprise has still not recognised the dangers of social divergence, or, the ever increasing disparities in power relationships taking place between the various segments of a freely enterprising society.

Most people still believe, that such a competitive existence, as well as the stimulation of the drive to acquire personal wealth and security, can lead to a stable social unit; partly, because of the somewhat vague and naive hope, that, egocentrically oriented activities and attitudes will, somehow, create a beneficial spin-off for society as a whole, and, partly, because government institutions have come to rely upon an ever expanding level of personal and corporate income as a source of revenue to cover the fast-rising expenditures of leadership commitments and election promises.

Yet, our artists, sports-men and -women, scientists, as well as many other professionals show, clearly, that the development of a particular skill or structure of knowledge and expertise may become a satisfying goal in itself, without the need for a large financial reward. This means, that there can be an adequate level of motivation to work hard and find satisfaction without becoming rich. However, if a society deteriorates towards increasingly egocentric and suspicious attitudes, it is logical to see, that many people become anxious, defensive and mistrustful of the social mechanisms upon which they have come to rely so much. Then, they forget about the satisfactions of doing a good job, and, they become eager to acquire the basic security and freedom that comes with having lots of money to spend.

Indeed, anyone, who has become highly specialised is also remarkably vulnerable to deteriorating social conditions, and, if such an individual loses faith in the usefulness and marketability of his skills, one tends to become disillusioned and experience a sense of entrapment. This is the first step towards an increasingly defensive posture, and, it is fueled by a deep-seated and realistic anxiety.

Large-scale social leadership has, therefore, the responsibility to ensure, not only, the right of existence for each member, but, also, the right to be meaningfully involved in the mechanisms of social well-being.

Clearly, society will have to take into account the normal decline in versatility and stress-tolerance as people grow older. It is also obvious, that, only a precise understanding of these factors, as well as a clear direction of social developments, will create stable guidelines for individual unfolding and a successful integration of these specialised members, as they go through the various stages of their career and life-cycle.

We like to sound a warning, here, against embarking, too early, on the road towards a specialisation because of the loss of flexibility that is associated with any form of specialisation. It is very important, that we encourage and maintain flexibility in our behaviour-patterns for as long as we can, and, it is, therefore, important that young people are exposed during their formative years in the Civil Task-Force to a truly broad variety of specialised and skilled activities and experiences, without becoming specialists, as yet.

It is wrong to encourage an early and narrowly based specialisation, even, if such a trend seems attractive, because it appears to be the easiest method to fill, quickly, the need for a particular skill. The price we pay for such a short-sighted policy is a reduced flexibility, as well as limited level of comprehension by such early specialists, who may become quickly obsolete, since they lack the broadness of knowledge and insight to adapt and adjust to rapidly changing circumstances.

The problem with large-scale social development is, often, not so much, that the members are unwilling to engage in a process of mutual reliance and task-differentiation, but, the fact, that such a differentiation or specialisation takes place too quickly, leading to a premature loss of flexibility and adaptability, enhancing the forces of divergence in power relations, which aggravate, in turn, the feelings of entrapment and defensiveness.

If an individual becomes so specialised, that he or she becomes totally dependent upon other segments of the population for large areas of his or her existential concerns, one becomes vulnerable to extortion or exploitation, since the price that can be extracted for the fulfilment of these existential requirements, has no limits. One has then become, unwittingly and unwillingly, a slave to the circumstances, as one has relinquished, or neglected, all the primary skills needed to survive more independently.

Let us come back to the right and obligation to work. The members of a social environment have an obligation to make an equitable contribution to society, and, the leadership has a responsibility to ensure, that the stress of making this contribution, remains equitable. Society has also the resonsibility to distribute, fairly, the opportunities for personal development and fulfilment. All members have, therefore, a right to participate in these opportunities, and, they have a duty to ensure, that these opportunities remain distributed fairly throughout society.

Members share the responsibility to monitor the power relationships in society, and, they have to share in the task of correcting any deviations that begin to take place in this network of finely balanced, contradictory force-fields.

The ideals of social cohesion and individual development make it necessary to encourage a type of individualisation and unfolding of talents and aspirations, which is compatible with the needs of society. While a complete co-incidence or congruence between personal goals and social needs will be difficult to maintain, even, under optimum circumstances, careful monitoring of the failures and resulting tensions between egocentric drives and social concerns, is necessary to ensure that these internal tensions are kept within manageable limits and are dealt with efficiently.

Any trend towards corruption leads quickly to a break-down of those fragile guidelines that ensure justice, equality and transparence. As soon as these regulatory mechanisms disappear, the social tensions rise ever more quickly, and, the society loses increasingly the ability to restore its "optimum social equilibrium".

The right to "value for money" is another human right that is inter-twined with the right to equality of justice, to be protected from fraud, as well as the right to an equitable distribution of the burdens of stress. We have discussed, before, the idea, that money is, in essence, a contract, based on trust, and, that it represents a certain amount of work or effort.

Money is a substitute for barter, where the cumbersome process of matching value for value is replaced with an "I owe you"; a legally binding "statement of indebtedness", which became, slowly, an item that was trusted by everyone in the community, and, even, by members of other communities, who had learned that they could trust the value of a universal note of credit, or currency, given to them in exchange for their goods.

Originally, the concept, that the value of a coin or a universal letter of credit, a bank-note, had to be scrupulously maintained, was never questioned, because this concept was at the center of the reasons for the existence of a monetary system. An effort was made to incorporate into the coin its representative value in the form of a certain amount of precious metal, something that was not possible with paper-money. The effort to give an intrinsic value to a coin was meant to enhance the "trust value", or nominal value, given to this coin.

Governments realised, and acknowledged, at least, initially, that the introduction of paper-money, or, the universal note of credit, had to be covered by the existence of a certain value; a precious commodity, or an amount of precious metal, e.g., gold. This would allow anyone, who owned such a bank-note to exchange it for a specified and guaranteed amount of gold, or, any other commodity that would back the value of such a piece of paper.

Slowly, the degree of coverage became less, as banks and governments began to realise, that it would be unlikely that all bank-notes would be exchanged for gold at the same time. However, when there was a crisis in confidence, banks experienced such a rush on their gold-reserves, that they had to close their doors, and, eventually, governments and their financial institutions were forced to suspend the guarantee of convertibility into gold.

Following the Great Depression, the role of money changed significantly. This Depression occurred, in part, as the result of a relative shortage of money in circulation, and, governments discovered, that they could "stimulate the economy" during a slow-down of economic activities by introducing more money into circulation.

Such an expansion of the amount of money in the hands of ordinary people, (through the creation of employment or public works-programs, as well as other means of distributing monies to the public), increased the buying power of the public, and, this "oiled" or lubricated "the economy".

However, such an expansion of the money-supply made it increasingly difficult to keep all the money in circulation completely covered with gold. Slowly, the gold-coverage was lowered, and, eventually the quarantee of convertibility into gold was dropped all-together. From a guarantee to the individual holder of a bank-note that one was in possession of a certain amount of gold, or, some other standard commodity, the concept of the value of money became transformed into the general idea, that a society covered its money-supply, more or less, with its "Gross National Product".

The GNP was, and still is, considered to be a measure of the quantity and value of goods and services produced by a society, but, an individual could not "demand" a part of this GNP to cover the value of the currency one was holding, except by buying what one wanted or needed at the current price demanded for such a wanted or needed item.

The people, inside as well as outside a particular social environment or national entity, still, had the option to exchange their bank-notes for a different currency, but, since none of the societies guaranteed, anymore, a coverage with gold, it did not improve the ability to maintain the value of a monetary unit.

Initially, most currencies were related to each other with "fixed exchange rates", but, in the last few decades, even this guarantee has been dropped, and, money is now exchanged at "market values". Money itself has become a "commodity", to be sold or traded, just like any other commodity.

From a "letter of credit" with a guaranteed value, money has become nothing more than a commodity to be traded on open, and, sometimes, unofficial, or "black markets"; whenever the official valuation of a currency was not shared by the perceptions and experiences of the public.

The balance between the imports and exports of a society began to play a crucial role in the value attached to a particular currency by the international money-markets. The fixed exchange-rate between currencies had to be abandoned by most governments, in particular by the weaker nations and their less stable currencies, because they were subject to severe pressures from the international money-markets, as well as "black market mechanisms", whenever the exchange-rate was not realistic.

If a fixed exchange-rate did not reflect, anymore, the real value of the various currencies, a strong trend would develop to exchange one currency into another, in particular, since people had lost the ability to convert their monies into gold at a fixed rate. A logical result of this development was the relinquishing of fixed exchange-rates in favour of a system of freely floating currency values, determined, entirely, by the mechanisms of supply and demand.

As a result of the deterioration of the role of money, from a guarantee of value to a fickle commodity, the prices of many commodities, including those of gold and other precious metals, would rise, as soon as the confidence in a currency was eroded for one reason or another. Now the value of a currency is largely determined by the interest-rates paid on short-term investments, and, we see, indeed, how governments are manipulating the value of their currencies by changing or varying the rate of interest paid on short-term deposits, as well as on longer-term government bonds.

These trends have affected all currencies, and, the idea, that a currency is a substitute for the value of a particular standard commodity has been abandoned almost completely. Now, no-one is sure, that the acceptance of a certain amount of money in exchange for an item sold, will ensure the maintenance of value in relation to other items, which may have to be purchased at a later date.

In nearly every society, the money-supply has been expanded far beyond the coverage by a truly compensatory increase in the Gross National Product, and, we see, therefore, that every society has given-in to the temptation to print more money than could be justified in terms of maintaining some sort of an overall relationship between money and commodities.

The temptation to print money was, and still is, so strong, because it allows a government to pay for many of its expenditures with "cheaper money" than the monies borrowed from the local or international community. The mechanisms of a declining value of the currency became an advantageous tool, especially, when dealing with budget deficits and the financing of debts.

People who had received this "cheaper money" would initially not notice any reduction in their purchasing powers, but, this extra money would, inevitably, begin to put an upward pressure on prices, as it began to compete for a relatively limited number of goods and services. Initially, the extra amount of monies, supplied to people by the techniques of expanding the money-supply, meant, that their living standard and level of consumption began to rise, but, this improvement in living standards was short-lived.

Unless there was a real increase in the level of productivity to match this increased demand for consumption, competition for the available goods would drive-up prices, allowing wind-fall profits for successful manufacturers and merchants.

It is clear, that the extra level of spending-power is quickly eroded by a series of price hikes, leaving people disappointed, but, even more importantly, the initial confidence in the role and value of money has been shaken, and the willingness of people to save for a "rainy day", or, for a period of difficulties and hardship, has been severely eroded, and, this, in turn, stimulates the desire for immediate gratification and consumption.

The chronic loss of value of a currency is called "inflation", even, if the word refers, primarily, to the tendency for prices to "inflate", rather than the loss of value of the money itself, which is covered in the concept of "devaluation". Inflationary trends play into the hands of those, who have incurred debts, because, when paying-off a debt, borrowers return to the lender less value than they obtained at the time of a loan. This led to the need for a steep rise in interest-rates, which reflects the money that has to be paid for borrowing monies, and, in turn, the extra burdens of paying for high interest-rates, would further reduce the buying power of money.

Unless a society puts a damper on the expansion of its money-supply by borrowing less money and by paying a significant rate of interest, rather than just printing money, the value of its currency will drop so dramatically, that no other country or trading partner is willing to deal in this currency. The price of imports would then rise astronomically, crippling the economic mechanisms of society even further, especially, if a society has to import a large amount of raw materials or energy-sources, in order to keep its industries going.

......

Chapter 7

Content

The mechanisms of tensions, frustrations and despair.
When only the clever opportunists are profiting.
Relinquishing the guarantee of monetary value is a form of fraud.
Financial and economic mechanisms.
A gigantic deception.
Monetary values will have to remain stable, before a stable society can emerge.
The right to "value for money".
Why the value of labour and its products should not be determined exclusively by the mechanisms of supply and demand.
The right to "freedom of expression".
Criticisms should only be rebuffed by counter-arguments.
The Scholars of the State.
Freedom of beliefs and opinions is balanced by the obligation to be open and honest.
The emergence of a "natural conscience".
The right to dignity, and to be free from false accusations and insults.
Frictions, tempers and irritations can be eased by relaxing in privacy, and by reducing the stress-load.

The inflation of prices, the erosion of the value of money, a constant consumerist propaganda, as well as the burdens of chronic debts and financial worries, make many of the tensions, frustrations and criminal behaviour-patterns within our large, conglomerate societies, quite predictable. It is easy to understand the frustrations of people, when they see their savings dwindle and their buying-power drop. It is logical, that people are driven into an attitude of spending everything they earn, and a little more besides, because the chronic erosion of the value of income and savings has a severely demoralising effect on the attitudes of prudence and frugality.

We also understand, now, why borrowing money becomes increasingly expensive, as higher interest charges are necessary to induce the large investors to lend their monies. It is logical, that governments incur huge budget-deficits, created, in part, by irresponsible fiscal policies and election promises, and, partly, by the need to sooth a restless population with public expenditures of one sort or another. We see, now, the reasons, why society begins to fragment into militant factions, because mutual trust disappears and existential anxieties reach a feverish pitch, as many bonds of dependence linger-on and show the people, how vulnerable they really are.

It is logical, that the ordinary workers feel cheated and band together in militant unions. We understand, but do not condone, why they strike and hold society to ransom. As the mechanisms of equitable distribution are breaking-down, the social arena becomes a battle-ground in a lawless free-for-all, where many segments of society are engaged in an ever fiercer battle to secure as large a slice of the economic pie as possible.

We do not have to elaborate the consequences. We do not have to re-iterate, that, such a development destroys the last remnants of trust and cooperation. We all know, how the clever opportunists profit from these trends towards social chaos and fragmentation, and, how the disparities in power relationships increase rapidly. Corrupt attitudes and practices become the norm, and, the social tensions caused by frustration and a wounded sense of justice, reach a boiling point.

The idea, that a currency does not have to be covered, any longer, by an item of value, is, not only, an ignorant and short-sighted mistake in economic thinking, but, it is, in essence, a fraud, even, if this result was not intended.

It has become clear, that economic thinking has been led into a blind alley by attempts to stimulate the economy through an unwarranted expansion of the money-supply. It is tempting for a leadership to influence economic phenomena, such as the flow of monies, fluctuations in the value of a currency, profits, capital-gains, tax-revenues, as well as the rate of economic expansion, but, if these attempts lead to a rise in prices and a lowering of real incomes and savings, all these manipulations are in vain.

As a result of these rather unfortunate policies and financial manipulations, and, lured by short-term gains in popular support, the basic principle of value-for-money has been lost, in particular, after the spectacular phenomena of economic growth that took place in the early stages of the experiment with an expansion of the money-supply. However, economic growth, together with the phenomena of chronic inflation, also led to the practice of huge borrowings, by corporate and individual consumers alike. This led to a system of credit-buying, together with the burdens of debt-repayment and interest-charges, large budget-deficits by governments at all levels, as well as the creation of an atmosphere of frantic consumption and continuously rising expectations.

These developments make it clear, why modern economists and their political disciples have to look towards the gods of ever increasing economic expansion for their salvation, because the health and stability of the affluent societies have become captive to the need for an ever expanding economy.

The idea, that the economic growth should only reflect an increase in population, or, that it should only reflect attempts to bring a minimum standard of decent living conditions to all peoples, is rejected as naive and archaic, and, yet, these modern economic strategists have still not recognised one of the most disastrous consequences of their theories and policies. This is the loss of confidence in the monetary system, and, with it, a loss of confidence in society and its leadership institutions.

If we think, again, about the fundamental mechanisms that create social cohesion and an attitude of trust, we see, not only, that a stable currency is essential to maintain a measure of trust and confidence, but, we see, also, that the development of barter, trade and productivity, in all spheres of economic activities, is based upon the belief, that the value of a promissary note of credit, or "money", retains its value as promised. In addition to this key-mechanism in the creation of an atmosphere of trust and confidence, we have also discussed the importance of the factor of essential equality in power relationships.

In summary, we may state, that, the artificial rise in spending powers, created by an increase in the amount of money in circulation beyond that which is justified by a true increase in productivity, is a fraudulent deception, perpetrated by the leadership against its own people, and, it is the beginning of an almost irreversible trend towards social chaos and collapse.

We have to recognise, once again, the essential equation between values. We have to recognise the simple fact, that we have to give value for the monies we receive, and, that we may expect this value to remain stable for a prolonged period of time. This is the primary task of each and every social leadership, if it is worth its salt, and, if it is genuinely concerned with maintaining or restoring social harmony, stability and justice.

The right to "value-for-money" is a fundamental and inalienable right, and, this right is inextricably linked to the realisation, that this money or income has to be earned with an equivalent value or contribution made to the employer or client. To give less in labour or in products than is received in monetary value, is just as fraudulent as the gradual erosion of the value of money by the process of inflation.

The value of labour, or, individualised productivity, can not anymore be determined, solely, by the laws of supply and demand, since this leads to exploitation and diverging power relationships. Value should be determined by collective discussions and decisions, and, the mechanisms that will have to be developed to determine value, will always have to take as their objective the maintenance of this delicate and fragile balance of justice and essential equality within a social environment.

So it is, too, with the right of freedom of expression. Before we can even begin to discuss the aspects of freedom of expression in beliefs and thoughts, we have to remind ourselves, that our awarenesses, (this entire structure of beliefs and ideas), function as a giant guidance-pattern for our reality perceptions and behaviour-patterns. Therefore, we can not simply say, that it is irrelevant, what we believe to be true, or, what sort of opinions we express, as long as we behave in a way that does not violate the rights of others.

Our behaviour is inevitably influenced by our beliefs, and, the recognition of each other's rights depends, to a large extent, upon our reality perceptions. This means, that it is extremely important to work towards a commonly acceptable set of ground rules for our behaviour, where the detailed reasons and images of our reality perceptions are given a carefully calculated range of variability.

It may, indeed, not matter greatly, whether or not we accept a certain set of behavioural guidelines on the basis of a belief that these guidelines are an expression of a "Divine Will". It may not matter a great deal, whether or not we come to the conclusion, that these guidelines are the product of our own studies and reflections. If, however, fanatic religious beliefs begin to deny the universality of basic human rights by making a distinction between the "saved" and the "damned", we may easily reach a situation, where the persecution of "the sinners" and the trampling of their rights is seen as a "Divine Command" or a fulfilment of the Will of God.

Similarly, if we are absolutely convinced about the truthfulness and righteousness of a particular set of social doctrines, and, if we give-in to the ever-present temptation to consider our perceptions as absolute truths, and, if we believe, that our particular interpretation of the way a society has to be structured is the only just and true way, then, we are bound to discriminate against others, and, we have to consider those who disagree, to be enemies and reactionaries.

It is clear, that criticisms of social situations and patterns of behaviour, including the interpretation and application of the fundamental social guidelines, should be protected by the right to freedom of opinion. Society should decree, that, criticisms can only be rebuffed by counter-arguments, and, not, by an infringement upon anyone's rights. If an idea sounds strange or appears subversive, the "Scholars of the State" should not have any difficulties exposing the fallacy of such an erroneous belief or opinion, and, if such an idea, (strange and menacing to the established segments in society), appears convincing and persuasive to others, the established institutions for the review of Constitutional Guidelines and their applications will have the responsibility of scrutinising, carefully, whether or not there exists a kernel of truth or justification in these beliefs and opinions, as well as a valuable indicator of the need for adaptative change.

It will always be possible, in any society, regardless, how hard, honestly and conscientiously a leadership has worked to establish high standards of justice and equality, to point a finger at certain aspects that require correction and improvement. Rather than adopting an attitude of impatient scorn and irritation for what seems, so often, a petty, unfounded, or, even, a malicious attempt to discredit a leadership or leadership institution, the leadership and the Scholars of the State should be required, by law, to refute, patiently, these criticism if they are unwarranted, or, to acknowledge the imperfections of a situation, if these criticisms are found to be essentially correct.

It should also be the task of the social leadership and the Scholars of the State, to place a criticism in a broad context of inter-related facts and view-points. Such a scholarly presentation provides, thereby, an informative function for the people in society; by showing a balanced and broad evaluation of a particular area of concern.

Let us never cease to develop everyone's capabilities to discuss and review areas of knowledge and information in as broad a light as possible. As leaders, we should not fall into the temptation to resort to simple half-truths, to minimise or obfuscate embarrassing mistakes, or, to bully and ridicule dissenters without taking their criticisms seriously.

Anyone is allowed and encouraged to think; to ask questions, and, to formulate a reality perception that is free from the fear of losing essential rights as a result of certain opinions and beliefs, but, at the same time, anyone, who formulates a clear and definite opinion should also accept the responsibility for his opinions, as well as the attitudes that flow from these beliefs and opinions.

Every citizen should be held accountable for his or her beliefs and actions, and, if these actions, ideas or opinions of right and wrong start to infringe upon the rights of others, a considered and detailed judicial study and judgement is necessary to determine, whether or not the actions of such an individual have to be considered as objectionable or criminal in nature.

The freedom to express beliefs and opinions is bought at the price of responsibility and accountability for these beliefs and opinions, as well as the right of other people to question and criticise the beliefs of any individual, especially, if one proclaims ideas that seem to deviate from currently accepted opinions and notions.

However, it should be the task of the leadership and its institutions to encourage a measure of individual differentiation for the members of society. The leadership should encourage the formulation of an informed and individualised opinion or concept about many important issues and concerns, because the people themselves are often inclined to opt for a simple distinction between right and wrong, or, true and false.

In a sophisticated, concerned and well-differentiated society, the rights of individuality and freedom of expression are actively encouraged and protected by the leadership against the superficial and often emotional judgements of a majority opinion, which is, so often, quick to condemn what it does not understand.

A confident but concerned, informed and broadly thinking leadership will base its actions and decisions upon carefully considered Constitutional Guidelines, and, it will make sure, that the balance of justice in society is scrupulously maintained. The emotions of the masses are more inclined to trample individual rights than a broadminded leadership, but, if the leadership becomes defensive, or, if it has been obtained by force and has become unresponsive to Constitutional Guidelines, then, the leadership may become the main source of repression and violations of human rights.

We will, eventually, recognise, that we all, each and everyone of us, are capable of injuring others by giving-in to egocentric opportunism or by an exaggerated defensiveness. Slowly, we will come to realise, that none of us is completely free from such tendencies, and, we will accept the fact, that we all can be anti-social, at times. Such an awareness may be interpreted as evidence for a "conscience", or, a "divine spark", especially, by religious believers, or it may be seen as a necessary and welcome evolutionary development in the search for social stability and viability. A social conscience, as well as the ability to be open and honest, are going to be crucially important tools to prevent the ever-present tendency towards entropic dissolution of the fragile social mechanisms.

The dignity of a human being is an inalienable right of our existence, and, the right to an individualised belief and a sense of self-worth make it imperative, that we consider the right of freedom of expression in the light of someone else's right to be free from insults or libellous attacks.

An insult can be a verbal expression or an attitude, or both, expressing the belief that one individual is inferior or superior to another. While such an attitude may not lead to any infringement upon a specific right, an insult is an injustice, because the accusation or opinion uttered is not substantiated by facts, and, it is, therefore, correctly felt to be a falsehood, a deliberate lie or misrepresentation, or, an expression of an unwarranted hostility. The insulted party has a right to his or her dignity, but, this right is balanced by the obligation to examine, seriously and honestly, whether or not the behaviour of the insulted party has provoked the insult.

The insulted party does not have the right to retaliate physically or with any other action that would infringe upon the rights of the insulting party. If an atmosphere of chronic hostility can not be overcome with reason and a serious attempt to show good-will and understanding on both sides, it would be wise to seek an outsider's view and judgement about the history of the conflict-situation, together with the problems that give rise to these lingering hostilities.

Often, frictions, hostilities, the flaring of tempers and spontaneous, short-lasting outbursts are nothing more than the result of a chronic and sometimes intense stress on the peoples involved, and, a simple easing of the level of stress or strain, with the provision of an increased measure of privacy and relaxation, a lessening of the population density, or, the encouragement of reflection and recreation, may be sufficient to restore a condition of peace and harmony.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

The freedom of behaviour.
Avoiding verbal hostilities and intellectual violence.
A deliberate lie is a criminal offense, and a careless remark may be judged as "criminal negligence".
Protecting the attitudes of trust and good-will.
The obligation to share equally in the burdens of existence.
The somewhat vague definition of "stress".
Eventually, we should be able to measure and calculate stress quite accurately.
Differing levels of resilience.
A shell of introvert behaviour.
Stress, seen as a balance between contradictory forces.
Stress in non-living systems.
A displacement-force, acting on a status of "optimum equilibrium".
The entire spectrum of life is linked together into a system of shifting equilibria.
A review of human rights and optimum conditions of existence, from a theoretical point of view.

When we talk about the right to freedom of expression, we usually mean the right to express an intellectual opinion, and, in particular, the right to express an opinion that is contrary to the official view-points of a dictatorial regime. Seen in this light, it is not difficult to make a clear-cut statement about the right to criticise and the obligation to consider criticisms seriously. We have discussed these aspects before, but, it is useful to consider, here, the right to freedom of expression in its full range of meaning.

If we acknowledge, that our thoughts, beliefs and opinions are part of a larger behavioural complex, we can view the right to freedom of expression as an examination of the boundaries of acceptable or tolerable behaviour. The discussion will, then, center around a classification of behaviour-patterns that range from outright egocentric, defensive or opportunistic attitudes, to highly enlightened, considerate and altruistic concerns for the well-being of other members in society.

Usually, our behaviour falls somewhere in the middle, and, we have outlined the concept, that the leadership and educational institutions of society have the obligation to encourage an open and trusting attitude. Leadership institutions have to encourage intelligent and broad-ranging perceptions of reality, and, they have a duty to curb excessive egocentric instincts by correcting, quickly, any abuse, injustices or exploitative practices that may be taking place.

It should, indeed, be possible to educate virtually every normal and healthy individual into attitudes and practices that are within the limits of tolerable behaviour. We also have to recognise the fact, that, examples of exceptional and far-sighted social behaviour are a hallmark of leadership. These qualities have to be carefully nurtured and encouraged, so that these gifted people may, eventually, reach a position of responsible leadership, where they can exercise their talents for the good of society.

It is therefore reasonable to scrutinise and analyse all opinions and behavioural expressions of the members of society. We know, that, intelligence and wit can be used as a devastating weapon, but, they may also be used in a rather good-natured way to expose the follies or pomposity of prominent people, who are carried-away with their own importance. On the other and, verbal abuse may become a libelous, slanderous and malicious attack that is as hostile as open warfare.

The evaluation of a verbal expression is, often, difficult, and, it will require patient impartial and expert analysis, before we can draw the distinction between permissible and non-permissible forms of verbal behaviour.

The introduction of new ideas and concepts may reflect, merely, a different way of thinking, as well as an exploration of new methods to cope with existential problems, either individually, or socially. These efforts at rejuvenating or reforming the way we look at reality, may not be hostile or harmful at all, but, they may arouse suspicion and mistrust because of their strangeness. Such an emotional reaction to something new is, of course, not justified, and, the Scholars of the State will have the responsibility to examine, carefully and thoughtfully, all conceptual expressions that come to the fore. They will have to refute, patiently, those ideas, that are clearly detrimental to the health of society, while some new ideas may have to be studied for some time, in order to determine, whether or not society will benefit from them.

Just as society can not accept the use of violence to settle disputes between its members, so should open hostilities by verbal means also be discouraged and placed under certain restrictions.

It is an insult to spread lies and rumors about another person, and, it is, in essence, a criminal offense, because the dignity and reputation of an individual may be seriously affected by a lie, in particular, when the people are not aware of the fact, that an attempt has been made to use a position of trust and authority to spread a deliberate falsehood. Then, people are not inclined to verify, what they are being told.

Any attempt to hurt someone's feelings or reputation, and trample someone's dignity under foot, should be considered a criminal offense, as it is already in many cases. At least, it should be considered an offense that can be challenged by a law-suit. Similarly, a deliberate deception, designed to profit from someone's limited or distorted perception of reality should be considered a criminal, anti-social form of behaviour, and, it should not be tolerated under the rights of freedom of expression.

We can simply state, that deliberate physical and psychological violence has to be curtailed, and, it has to be punished in the more severe cases. The manipulation of reality images by a deliberate lie, slant or bias in communications has to be considered an unlawful way of influencing the perception of reality.

At all times, a clear distinction has to be made, whether a story is presented as "fictional", or as a "true story". We can not blandly endorse all forms of expression as "rightful", or "free". A lot of harm can be done by malicious, egocentric and opportunistic attitudes and practices, because they have a detrimental effect upon this fragile fabric of mutual trust and reliance.

We may see these mechanisms in an even broader light, especially, when we consider physical and psychological pressures as a form of stress. It becomes, then, possible to formulate another broad principle or right of human existence. We are referring, here, to a broad principle of understanding that is not easily translated into clear-cut behavioural guidelines. This principle embodies the concept, that all human beings have the right to be equally burdened with the stresses necessary to maintain their existence.

We know from biological, evolutionary and psychological studies, that, every form of life, including human life, is subjected to many types of stress, and, we know, that life could not be maintained, if the living organism would not be able to spend a certain amount of energy to combat or overcome the stressful pressures upon its existence.

As a corollary to the principle of essential equality in living conditions, we have to formulate, also, the principle, that all human beings have the right to be protected from an unduly severe or disproportionate level of stress.

In other words; the burdens of existence should be carried by all members of society in a more or less equal load, just as the benefits of belonging to society have to be shared more or less equally.

Certainly, I realise, that the definition of stress is still somewhat vague, and, we know, that the tolerance of stress varies markedly from one individual to the next. Stress-tolerance diminishes gradually with advancing age, and, in particular the subjective experience or evaluation of stress varies enormously. What is highly stressful for one individual, may be a challenge, or, even, a form of relaxation to others.

Yet, there is no reason to despair at formulating a useful definition of the level of stress, because we should, eventually, be able to generalise adequately about the various forms of stress a human being can be subjected to. We should also be able to create some sort of a yard-stick or measurement for a stress-load, and, eventually, we should be able to arrive at a fairly accurate and equitable definition of stress, where we can measure the stress-load to which a particular individual is being subjected at any particular moment.

At the present time, it seems unlikely, that we can agree amongst ourselves, how to measure or define stress. As a result of a chaotic society and a poor definition of the range of normal behaviour-patterns, we see many manifestations of individual and social behaviour that will, eventually, be classified as clear-cut abnormalities. These are diseased forms of behaviour, which have found a possibility to perpetuate themselves, because we have failed, so far, to formulate adequate guidelines for the development of a personality or a social unit, nor, do we have accurate criteria to judge conditions of health and disease for the social organism.

At the present time, we see, that, many individuals, or, even, fairly large social groupings in our affluent societies are behaving in such an introvert manner, (and, they are so pre-occupied with their own particular desires, instincts and confused, contradictory impulses), that the mere fact of existence seems to constitute a significant burden of stress. Such pathological forms of existence and behaviour can not, and will not, be tolerated in future societies. It seems logical to expect, that educational guidelines, as well as a broad exposure to the problems of others, will avoid the formation of highly neurotic, completely self-centered individuals, who contribute next to nothing to the strength and viability of their social environment.

Therefore, we can not allow an individual who is pre-occupied with personal problems, (almost always of his own making), to argue, that he or she is already burdened with a higher than average stress-load. We can not accept such internal stresses as a legitimate socially oriented stress-load.

In our attempts to measure stress fairly, we will have to concentrate, primarily, on the stress-load caused by the demands made by society on an individual, but, we will have to acknowledge the fact, that some people may be much less resilient, less flexible and less stress-resistant than others, in particular, those, who are getting old or have become ill. There are many people who have shouldered their burdens of stress in the past, or, who have lost resilience as a result of a high level of specialisation.

People who have become pre-occupied with their personal problems, (often, as a result of a rather soft and unstructured existence during their formative years), are somewhat weak, and, perhaps, sickly individuals, who need treatment, and, perhaps, a carefully calculated extra stress-load in order to bring them out of their shell of futile and exasperating egocentricity.

Let us avoid hasty conclusion and facile solutions, here, because the ability to measure and define stress fairly and equitably, will require a long and careful period of study, and, it is linked to the evolution of our concepts about the essence and function of human existence.

In essence, stress is a balance between opposing forces, or, as we have outlined before, it is a force driving an organism away from a comfortable equilibrium. This displacement-force is balanced by the resistance such an organism can muster in order to halt or control this force of displacement. A new balance is then reached, away from the original equilibrium, and, the resistance put-up by the organism to the displacement force, as well as the deviation from the original position of equilibrium, is felt as "a stress".

In its initial phases, stress may be mild and challenging, as well as a highly stimulating and beneficial experience, giving guidance and an outlet to the forces of the surplus elan vital, but, in its more severe forms, stress becomes painful, perhaps, even, life-threatening, and it is felt as "suffering".

We have discussed, before, how these arguments apply equally well to physical or physico-chemical relationships of non-living systems, as well as the psychological sphere of human existence. We have also discussed the all-important mechanisms of adaptation to stressful influences, whereby an organism does not merely cling to its original point of equilibrium by resisting the stressful force as much as it can. In stead, stress is minimised by adapting to, and eventually accepting, a new status-quo.

Viability is measured, partially, by the ability to resist stress, but largely, it is an expression of the ability to adapt and accept a new equilibrium or status-quo. A displacement-force can, then, be nullified or minimised by yielding to this force, and, by exploring and exploiting the changed conditions that have been brought-about as a result of the inter-actions of the displacement-force with the force-fields of the previous status-quo.

The entire phenomenon of life, the cohesion of the living organisation, and, even, the formation of the single cell, can be regarded as an expression of this ability to adapt to continuously changing circumstances, together with the ability to explore a range of possibilities of existence given by the circumstances of the moment.

In our considerations about the right to a balanced and equitable distribution of the stress-load, we have arrived at the fundamental corner-stones of the mechanisms of life. We see, then, that all living structures search and adapt, while testing, continuously, the criteria of viability, and, we have also outlined, how the most volatile changes in the conditions of the environment, (or the most important stress-factors infringing upon the existence of a living organism or species), are brought-about by the existential requirements of other living organisms.

The entire spectrum of life is linked together in a system of dynamic or shifting equilibria, where a variety of species' seek their possibilities of existence in shifting positions of dominance and submission. These relative positions of weakness and strength form, together, the patterns of an ecologically balanced system.

Certainly, these ecological niches, or, balanced but shifting possibilities of existence, are also influenced by geological and climatological factors, and, the whole, vast area of force-fields between the living systems and the environmental conditions are now beginning to be formulated as abstractions in the concepts of an "ecological system", or, a "natural balance".

The human being seeks, not only, an ecological balance within society, (in a process of symbiotic harmony and gradually increasing inter-dependence with his fellow members), but, the societies of man are also linked to a system of ecological balances with other species' in the spctrum of life, as well as the atmospheric, terrestial and climatological conditions on our planet.

Therefore, we should describe as the final and crowning principle of human rights of existence, the right to live in a stable ecological balance with the living and non-living environment. This means, that, every human being has the right to question unnecessary economic growth, resource exhaustion or exploitation, pollution, as well as other harmful effects upon our social and natural environments, but, every human being has also a duty to consider the factors involved in this ecological balance, and, to participate, actively, in whatever activities and studies are necessary to accomplish the objectives of a long-term, well balanced, natural environment.

This means, that, every human being, as well as every social grouping, has the right to exist in a minimum standard of decency, health and opportunity, but, at the same time, each individual or grouping has an obligation to refrain from waste, superfluous consumption and unnecessary stress upon the environment. Only, if we see all our activities in the light of long-term objectives and requirements that span a time-period of many generations, only, then, will we have found the equations of social and individual justice, collective and individual viability, as well as the key to a stable balance between mankind and its terrestial life-support systems.

It is clear, that we can not consider a solution of local social problems to be the end of our concerns and responsibilities. As long as we can see inequalities in stress-load, standards of living, levels of education and the implementation of justice, we will not be able to solve our problems effectively or fairly.

As individuals, we have already learned the need for ethical behaviour-patterns and socially responsible attitudes that go out far beyond the concerns of our own existence or immediate social environment. As societies, we also have to adopt the same wide-ranging concerns and attitudes, and, our social leaderships and cultural guidelines will have to enlarge the sphere of their ethical concerns to the point, that every social grouping or social environment considers itself to be a member of the family of mankind.

Eventually, we will cease to identify, only, with our particular social environment, but, we will think in terms of global mechanisms of cooperation and identification. We seem so far away from such a beneficial pattern of attitudes, that, many of us will consider these perspectives naive and irrealistic. However, by adopting such pessimistic attitudes, we do not contribute one iota to the long-term viability of mankind.

The most dangerous consequences of such an a-pathetic attitude to seemingly intractable problems, lie in the resurgence of ethnic or nationalistic attitudes, where the solution to problems is sought, once again, by eliminating dissent, as well as all those people and groupings who are considered to be at the root of our problems.

Such primitive solutions to complex problems have been tried so many times before, and, they have led to so much strife, misery and bloodshed, that we should have learned, by now, that this is a dead-end, unviable way to solve our problems.

If we can not avoid such disastrous set-backs in our attitudes and behaviour, we may see, that, our anxious forebodings about a global devastation and the end of human life are becoming a reality. Let us try to avoid this calamity, as long as we have the power and the insight to do so, and, let us patiently explore the possibilities for an enhanced and prolonged human existence. Let us consider, carefully, the opportunities that are given in a system of thoughtfully worked-out checks and balances, or, human rights and obligations, which will make it possible to evolve into a globally integrated society of mankind.

.......

Summary

1. Every right has to be paid-for with an obligation.
   The principles of cellular inter-dependence.
   Specialisations in form and function.
   A poverty of regulatory mechanisms for the societies of mankind.
   Human rights, and the mechanisms that are necessary to guide a social organisation.
   A cultural code develops, to a large extent, beyond the input of conscious awareness.
   Customs and mores, developing into laws and regulatory principles.
   The law; seen as a hindrance, or as a tool, in the pursuit of egocentric benefits.
   When a law sanctions the private ownership of property.
   Why the laws of society tend to accentuate disparities.
   The sense of justice, versus the deliberate creation of a condition of justice.
   The "social contract".
   Egocentric concerns are an inalienable part of our biological heritage and have to be controled with firm cultural guidelines.
   
   
   
2. Learning to live with the realities of our instinctive drives.
   The increasing importance of consciously formulated regulatory principles.
   The criteria of viability have already shifted to the cultural code.
   We still have not defined, what, exactly, we need for a just and stable social environment.
   The objection that people are not "born equal", and are not endowed equally with talents or ambitions.
   The need to cut-out, resolutely, a festering sore.
   Talented people with leadership capabilities do not have to become all-powerful.
   Essential equality, defined as the essential similarity of basic existential needs for every human being.
   The charismatic leader.
   Human rights can only be given by a society, if a majority of its members is willing to work hard and make it possible for society to distribute these rights.
   People have to understand the importance of the social unit, and, they must be willing to forego the temptation of elitist advantage-taking.
   Class-divisions are not divinely ordained.
   The give and take in a social environment; an excercise in reciprocity.
   The privilege of excercising a right, and tolerating a process of individualisation.
   A web of trustful, inter-dependent relationships.
   
   
   
3. The fragile awareness, that human or civil rights depend on a gift from society.
   The elite, and problems with leadership succession.
   The sacrifices necessary for a "revolutionary correction".
   The only definitive solution to the problem of competitive strife is a globally integrated society of mankind.
   The balance between input and output.
   A number of examples of the balance between rights and obligations; property rights, the right to know, and the right to a minimum standard of living.
   The right to choose a leader.
   Social entropy, and the mechanisms necessary to prevent it.
   The energy spent on competitive strife has to be diverted to maintaining a condition of justice and essential equality.
   The vulnerability of specialisation.
   Expansionism; a natural and unavoidable result of evolutionary success and increasing population pressures.
   A broad look at the requirements of essential equality.
   We become vulnerable and depressed, whenever we are narrowly specialised without the means to maintain a condition of justice and essential equality.
   
   
   
4. A review of the mechanisms of inter-dependence.
   An outline of practical measures to ensure a condition of social health.
   Why it is important to maintain a measure of independence, whenever we can.
   The value of remaining "pluri-potential".
   The virtues of a state of near self-sufficiency.
   The rise of labour-unions.
   Society is often held hostage in labour disputes.
   The right to strike is a weapon that is becoming socially destructive, creating injustice rather than solving it.
   Society, and the law of the jungle.
   An isolated crime may be the result of stress, or a violent outburst of emotional tensions.
   The "under-world" of a complex, free-enterprise society.
   Ambivalent attitudes and practices.
   We can not tamper with the ideas and ideals of justice.
   
   
   
5. A detailed analysis of rights and obligations.
   The need for an objective and competent standard of judgement.
   Resisting the temptation to be manipulative and fraudulent.
   Confused and vulnerable heirs to a defective culture.
   The right to know, and the obligation to understand.
   The right to be protected from abuse, libel and exploitation.
   A high-quality product of knowledge and information.
   Manipulations by commercial interests.
   The right to know represents the right to question and the obligation to tell.
   Why we need an inventory of people; a profile of each personality, with all its activities and capabilities, weaknesses and past history.
   The question of privacy.
   A system of transparent living conditions, protected by checks and balances.
   Learning to behave when under close, constant scrutiny.
   Enormous ramifications.
   The tendency to behave fraudulently.
   The importance of monitoring, effectively, everything that is happening within society.
   The right to privacy is the right to relax and to be free from stress; at least, for a significant part of our existence.
   The need to digest impressions and learn new things.
   The obligation to contribute, whenever we are vigorous and healthy, and, the right to relax, whenever we need a rest.
   
   
   
6. Life needs "work", or energy, to maintain itself.
   Independence requires general knowledge and a large range of activities.
   Diverging power-relationships.
   A balancing act.
   An equitable distribution of "stress".
   Tax; the obligation to contribute in time, effort and products.
   It can be highly satisfying and stimulating to contribute to society.
   The naive hope, that competitive strife leads to social health.
   Stimulating personal developments and initiatives through a range of freedoms and encouragements, rather than through competitive strife.
   The right to be meaningfully employed by society.
   A warning against too early a specialisation.
   The need to remain flexible, for as long as possible.
   Personal and social goals may co-incide, to a large extent.
   The concept of an "optimum equilibrium".
   The right to value for money.
   The function of money, and the problems associated with a devaluating currency.
   
   
   
7. The mechanisms of tensions, frustrations and despair.
   When only the clever opportunists are profiting.
   Relinquishing the guarantee of monetary value is a form of fraud.
   Financial and economic mechanisms.
   A gigantic deception.
   Monetary values will have to remain stable, before a stable society can emerge.
   The right to "value for money".
   Why the value of labour and its products should not be determined exclusively by the mechanisms of supply and demand.
   The right to "freedom of expression".
   Criticisms should only be rebuffed by counter-arguments.
   The Scholars of the State.
   Freedom of beliefs and opinions is balanced by the obligation to be open and honest.
   The emergence of a "natural conscience".
   The right to dignity, and to be free from false accusations and insults.
   Frictions, tempers and irritations can be eased by relaxing in privacy, and by reducing the stress-load.
   
   
   
8. The freedom of behaviour.
   Avoiding verbal hostilities and intellectual violence.
   A deliberate lie is a criminal offense, and a careless remark may be judged as "criminal negligence".
   Protecting the attitudes of trust and good-will.
   The obligation to share equally in the burdens of existence.
   The somewhat vague definition of "stress".
   Eventually, we should be able to measure and calculate stress quite accurately.
   Differing levels of resilience.
   A shell of introvert behaviour.
   Stress, seen as a balance between contradictory forces.
   Stress in non-living systems.
   A displacement-force, acting on a status of "optimum equilibrium".
   The entire spectrum of life is linked together into a system of shifting equilibria.
   A review of human rights and optimum conditions of existence, from a theoretical point of view.

.......