ETHICAL GUIDELINES AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR







A Study in Thought

sa048



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

A discussion about justice, human behaviour-patterns and ethical guidelines.
Crime is a deliberate act that violates the conditions of justice for the sake of an egocentric advantage.
Crimes of an aggressive opportunism, or a defensive rage.
The definition of crime depends on our view of man, as well as the nature of his societies.
Crime and the mechanisms of social decay.
The detailed analysis of a terminally ill society.
The mechanisms of social cohesion.
Social growth and reproduction, or rejuvenation.
A social contract of essential equality.
The sense of justice.
Grouping-together in a complex social environment; the formation of sub-groupings.
The fluidity of hierarchical positions.
It is not easy to define or discuss the wide-ranging realm of crime.

Let me make it clear from the start, that this is not an essay about the law, its enforcement, or its institutions, but, it is a discussion of the philosophy of ethics, justice and human behaviour. Crime is defined as any deliberate act violating the conditions of justice, whatever the reasons or motivations for such behaviour.

Indeed, we may consider the motivations for criminal behaviour to fall into three broad categories, which follow logically from the way human behaviour can be defined. First of all, there is an aggressive, opportunistic form of criminal behaviour, where an individual makes use of an opportunity to gain power, or wealth, at the expense of another individual, or the community at large. Secondly, there is the violent, emotional reaction against a perceived injustice, which may lead to a number of criminal offenses. Thirdly, there are the crimes of ignorance and neglect.

Opportunistic motivations and actions arise, primarily, if the regulatory mechanisms and behavioural practices in society have deteriorated, and allow a state of chronic injustice to exist, with its inevitable consequences of mutual hostility and suspicion. Then, such a predatory attitude becomes almost the "normal" way of behaviour, and, it is despised and admired at the same time. At least, some people will come to the conclusion, that it is the only way to survive, and, these practices become, then, "desirable", and lose the stigma of being unethical or criminal.

Affluent, Capitalist societies show this trend towards ethical break-down quite clearly, because they place a strong emphasis on the virtues of success, and, they are inclined to turn a blind eye towards somewhat unscrupulous patterns of behaviour. As long as an individual stays "within the law", or avoids "getting caught", his success in financial acquisitions or the rise to power, is admired.

We will see, how close such behaviour comes to being criminal. Not only are the "sharp" practices of advantage-taking criminal in nature and intent, but, the attitude condoning, or, even, encouraging such practices, will also have to considered criminal in nature. This will become clear, when we re-define the concepts of criminality.

Crime may also result from a defensive reaction, when an individual feels so strongly to have been wronged, that he or she explodes into a rage of anger, committing obviously criminal acts which are usually easily detected and punished.

As a third category, we see, that criminal activities could be a manifestation of ignorance or neglect. In this case, an individual, or, even, an entire community commits a crime, because one does not know any better. But such a behavioural act may also represent a case of negligence, when an individual or community fails to take the actions it should have. Sometimes an individual commits an inappropriate act, or, even, a crime, because he or she feels completely out of place in an environment, which the rest of society considers "normal". It is clear, that the society has to assume, then, a measure of responsiblity for the behaviour of the individual who does not fit in, because, frequently, society and its members neglect to recognise the problems of someone, who is not familiar with social customs and regulations, and, who feels lonely and frustrated as a result of having been neglected.

In order to deal effectively with the problems of crime, we have to learn to analyse, thoroughly, human motivations and behaviour-patterns, otherwise, we will never understand, when, and why, injustices take place; why some people never seem to be able to stay within the law and become pitiful petty criminals, while others never wind-up behind bars, and yet, exploit, ruthlessly, major segments of society with pernicious and long-lasting effects.

Historians will see more clearly than we can now, how widespread the rotting influence of criminal behaviour has penetrated into the affluent societies. Just as we wonder, how a tree, long dead, its core rotten and pulverised, can stand for years and years, until, suddenly, the catastrophic collapse comes, so will many of us wonder, in hindsight, how it was possible for such a prolonged and extensive process of "behavioural rot" to have taken place in the core of large, affluent societies, without a swift and immediate collapse of those "monuments of decay".

As always, the hard-working, gullible and good-willing, average citizens carry the burdens of society on their backs, while the smart, the powerful and the corrupt feed at their expense.

It is not surprising to see, that desperate attempts are being made on the commercialised media of our societies to keep the people gullible and hard-working; to make them spend every cent they earn; to entice them to go into debt and gamble, because, without this financial enslavement of the average worker, our corporate empires of profit and opportunistic gain would not survive.

Just as the land-owning aristocracy, prior to the Industrial Revolution, needed to suppress their slaves and control their serfs in order to keep their empires functioning, so are the business enterprises of today locked into the practices of enticing and enslaving the consuming public.

Physical slavery has been replaced by a voluntary slavery, induced by persuasion and deceit, and, it will be a surprise to see, how easily we can extend the definition of criminality to encompass the behaviour of a majority of the people, because, in our affluent societies, almost all of us participate, in one way or another, in the maintenance of this "economic momentum", which is based on the willingness to goad, entice and deceive gullible people into parting with their earnings.

I know, that this will not sound very hopeful to most of my contemporaries, because they feel trapped and depressed, whenever they dare to admit to themselves, that they can not change the situation they are in. It will be hard to acknowledge, that the core of society has already been eaten-away by greed, ruthless competition and the universal practice of spreading biased information and deceptive objectives. I know, that most people will react to such a diatribe against the affluent societies with an impatient shrug of the shoulder, and, they will dismiss such an unsettling condemnation of the Capitalist system as "self-defeating" and "unproductive".

I know, that the half-hearted attempts of good-willing political leaders will continue to patch-up the most glaring deficiencies and injustices, because too radical an approach to eliminate the roots of a disease may destroy the fragile semblance of social cohesion. Yet, this is the same as saying, that the patient is incurably ill, and, that radical therapy is only going to make matters worse.

Let us say it, then, loudly, that our affluent societies are seriously ill, because I am writing mostly for myself. Hopefully, I am writing for future generations as well, but, I write, primarily, with the desire to state, as precisely as I can, the fundamental reasons, why our affluent societies have become so diseased. In a way, this diatribe will sound like a post-mortem examination of a patient who is still showing a few signs of life.

It is unlikely, that the social structure and the cultural guidelines of our contemporary, affluent societies will survive in their present form, but, it may help us to understand the basic problems of affluence and criminality, if we are willing to look, once again, at the fundamental reasons for social coherence, as well as the reasons for formulating guidelines for a form of behaviour that is ethical and constructive within such a framework of social coherence.

We will never understand the seemingly inevitable decay of social entities, after they have bloomed through a period of success and achievement, unless we learn to see, exactly, what attitudes and behavioural mechanisms hold a society together, and, which usher-in the processes of decay and fragmentation.

There is another reason, why we should not hesitate to carry-out an autopsy on a terminally ill society, because the death of a social organisation or a structure of coherence does not necessarily have to lead to suffering and death for its members. We can change a social structure radically and relatively painlessly, if we learn to obtain a consensus for such a change beforehand. We may rejuvenate society through an act of our "collective will", without endangering the lives of its members and without losing a great deal of what is valuable to us, but, we have to be willing to search for the real mechanisms behind social malaise, regardless, how painful it is, or, how unsettling it may be to live in a society that has lost its core of strength and resilience.

The root of the problem is actually not difficult to state in its fundamental outlines, but, the problem is, how to make such a generalised statement and fundamental outline meaningful and convincing to most people. This can be done by tracing, patiently, the background and the reasoning that have gone into the general conclusions of such a generalised outline.

The reasons for social decay after a period of success and affluence, as well as the reasons for corruption, greed, increasing egocentricity and a disappearance of the sense of justice, all go back to the simple fact, that, every successful society loses its need for cohesion as a result of its own success.

Social cohesion is a means to enhance viability, by working and living together, but, as soon as such a social unit becomes successful, the need for coherence falls-away, as the viability of each member, as well as the entire social environment, has been enhanced. At the same time, the members of a successful social unit are inclined to forget, quickly, the background of their success, as well as the reasons for the mechanisms of social integration. Social coherence is, therefore, a self-limiting mechanism, which is attenuated, or made irrelevant, by its own succes. However, this is not the only reason for a loss of relevance, because a specific form of social integration can also be made irrelevant by a total failure of the objectives that lie behind a specific social cohesion.

Only, when a social structure encounters a modest success, by enhancing its viability to some extent, and, by reaching some sort of an equilibrium with external pressures, only, then, will the need for social coherence remain apparent to its members.

As we have discussed before, a successful social unit will grow, quickly, until it becomes "top-heavy". Then, it is likely to "split-apart", like a cell in a mitotic division, and, the two parts drift-away to set-up social units on their own. However, with increasing population densities, such a splitting-off and diffusion of small social groupings into the neighbouring territories becomes much more difficult.

When people who have been excluded from the more privileged positions in society, can not break-away anymore, they become invariably exploited and oppressed. If the pressures of exploitation and injustice become intense, the social structure will be torn-apart, or, at least, challenged by a revolt. This may lessen the tensions within a social unit temporarily, but, soon, these tensions will reach again a boiling point, as some other form of injustice is making its presence felt.

When arable land became scarce and insufficient for a successful and expanding community, this community could arm itself and conquer the territory from its neighbours in order to relieve the tensions of increasing population pressures. We are all aware of the fact, that this has been a very successful method to give room to a society that was expanding rapidly and growing vigorously, and, at the same time, such a "predatory attack" upon a neighbour would eliminate a weaker society that had peacefully stagnated into a stodgy complacency.

We see, here, another parallel with the phenomena of early life. After the mitotic proliferation of single cells, the competitive stalemate between a large and dense population of near-identical cells was broken-through by the development of parasitic and predatory forms of behaviour, where weaker cells were exploited or devoured.

The high level of stress associated with breaking-away from a community in which one has failed to gain a satisfactory position, means, that such individuals or small groupings are subjected to a much greater pressure from those who are powerful. The mounting resistance of rebellious attitudes becomes a limiting factor in the level of exploitation that can be carried-out by the more privileged groupings, and, we know, that a high level of unrest and social fermentation may weaken a society to the point, that it becomes an attractive target for annexation by a more powerful neighbour.

The larger societies were forced to develop a more explicit system of guidelines to regulate the relationships between the various groupings, in order to lower the level of social unrest and remain viable. Slowly, a set of regulations, customs and laws appeared, formulating a set of practical guidelines that could be accepted as fair and just by a majority of the population. Hierarchical disputes, power-struggles and other conflicts of interest could then be settled by some sort of a "judicial process", without weakening the social entity by bloodshed and violent strife.

We have discussed, before, that the leadership became intuitively aware of the need to suppress internal conflicts of interest and serious power-struggles, because the leadership identifies, at least, intuitively, with the society as a whole, and, an alert leadership realises that its powers and prestige, represented by the vigour of society as a whole, are diminished, whenever warring factions harm each other seriously.

In its most developed form, a solution to the tensions of internal conflicts of interest has been found in a "social contract of essential equality", where every member of society receives equal treatment and privileges as a matter of birth-right, but, each member is also called-upon to contribute according to individual talents and the opportunities of the moment.

The social contract of essential equality is still not a well-verbalised or conceptualised idea, and, it remains, by and large, a somewhat intuitive "sense of justice".

We have to ask ourselves, first of all, what lies behind this "sense of justice". When do we feel, that our sense of justice has been honoured, and, when do we feel, that it has been wronged or violated. Even more important is the question, how we arrive at the conclusions or judgements for our sense of justice. Occasionaly, our sense of justice seems to be affronted, or, at least, disappointed, if we fail to gain materially from year to year, as we see reflected in the rising levels of expectations within an affluent society.

We see, indeed, that our sense of justice is an intuitive package of notions, reflecting poorly verbalised ideas about our position in society, our opinions about the leadership, notions about rights and privileges, ideas about the way society should develop, as well as our rightful place in it.

The sense of justice depends on our sense of self-worth, the social status of our family, the reasons for engaging in specific activities or skills, as well as the achievements or results of our efforts. All these factors play a role in determining our outlook upon society, as well as an evaluation of our position within our social environment.

If we feel, that we are treated in a way that conforms to our ideas about our self-worth, our sense of justice will be respected, and, we may be inclined, for a variety of complex motivations, to do something for our neighbour, our community, or the nation as a whole.

However, if we feel, that we are not being treated, respected or recognised the way we should, a feeling of disappointment and resentment will make us reluctant to make any effort or contribution towards our social environment, and we become increasingly defensive and suspicious.

On the other hand, if we are given a higher position of respect and trust than we deserve, (either, on the basis of relatives or parents who have made a sgnificant contribution in the past, or, on the basis of the amount of power and wealth we have acquired), we may be tempted to abuse the opportunities and privileges for personal gain. Then, we consider it right and normal, that we, as well as our relatives and children, occupy permanently a position of privilege, and, we will increasingly consider any challenge to our position as an act of treason against society as a whole.

In a complex society, the members tend to group-together along lines of interests, ideology or profession, and, we re-enforce each other in the belief, that our actions and opinions are justified. Our interests become, then, "above questioning", and, anyone, who questions the unquestionable, becomes a stranger; an outlaw, who does not really belong to our group.

As leaders, we may become disappointed with the fickle loyalties of the people, the short memories of our accomplishments, as well as the undeserved criticisms for those aspects of our leadership that were less successful or outright failures. As a result, we may become suspicious and defensive. We become, then, more interested in maintaining a position of power and privilege, rather than leading and serving the community in which we believed so strongly.

If we are at the bottom of the social hierarchy, we may have accepted our position as just, at least, initially. Perhaps, we were prisoners of war, who had been granted life in exchange for slave-labour, or, there may have been other reasons, which made it acceptable to be low on the social ladder, but, our children, especially, if they are healthy and strong, will be restless, and, they will want to have the same opportunities as the children from other classes in society.

Perhaps, we are somewhere in the middle. Perhaps, our parents worked hard, lived frugally, and build-up a stable home, but, if they were somewhat indulgent and failed to excercise an attitude of discipline and gratefulness, we will grow-up soft and weak, and, we may squander our talents, as well as the assets of our parents, in particular, if a society allows us to inherit the fruits of our parents' labours.

Yet, even, if our parents were strong disciplinarians, chances are, that we find their discipline irrelevant, and, we may rebel and live a life that is wasteful, or, certainly, we live a life-style that is different from the life-style led by our parents. Or, we may grow-up in a family, where there is a strong emphasis on social success, power and affluence, and, we may ask, why; why is it necessary to live for money and success, and, we may drift-away from the social environment of our up-bringing to become a dreamer or an idealist.

The point is, that there is no stable point from which we can judge a situation and assign it a definitive value of justice or injustice. We can not say, categorically, what people have to accept or should accept as "just". The sense of justice permeates our whole being, because it depends on our personality and our ambitions, or the lack of ambitious motivations. It depends on the way we have been brought-up, the judgements we have accepted from our social environment, as well as on our own insights and opinions.

There should be a natural fluidity in the hierarchical positions people occupy in a social environment, in particular, from one generation to the next, and, we should, indeed, encourage and safeguard such a fluidity of the hierarchical order, because this is one of the least disruptive ways to keep the level of social tensions low, to keep a sense of justice alive, and, to attract real talent into leadership positions.

As a rule, a strict hierarchical stratification of society, especially, if it becomes inherited, is unjust. It stultifies a society and will lead, inevitably, to destructive tensions. It is not difficult, therefore, to acknowledge, that we have to be cautious, when answering questions about crime and criminal behaviour, because we have to know, first, what a healthy society really means, what kind of regulations and guidelines, or, what sort of laws and institutions are necessary. Finally, we have to know human motivations well enough to understand, why, and when, certain people will engage, deliberately, in criminal activities.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A definition of "social health".
Evolutionary mechanisms.
A community of biochemical reaction-patterns; the cell.
Competitive pressures, and a variety of inter-dependencies.
The sentiments behind "vegetarianism".
Specialisation, or divergence in function, represents a solution to the pressures of competitive strife.
Obligatory social existence.
Man can still exist in varying degrees of isolation and independence.
Individualisation, made possible by a socially integrated unit.
The functions of our biological and cultural heritage.
When unscrupulous attitudes are hailed as "clever business practices".

The time has come, that we should be able to agree amongst ourselves what it means to have a really healthy society. We should, finally, know, how to define health and normality, be it for the individual or the social environment as a whole, and, we should have become aware enough about the mechanisms of social growth and decay to avoid the ever-recurring temptation to tear a society apart, as soon as we have been able to ease the burdens of individual existence through a measure of social integration.

Why is it so difficult to come to a generally agreed-upon definition of health and normality for our individual and collective existence? The reasons are, in essence, the lack of a definition of life itself. We do not really know, how to interpret the essence of the living organisation, and, we certainly disagree, at times violently, about the way we have to interpret our own existence.

If we have such an uncertain foundation for the definition of life, it should not surprise us, that related concepts, such as the conditions of health or the boundary-lines of normal human existence, do not go much further than an attempt to agree upon a number of practical guidelines.

We keep enumerating a series of qualities or conditions under which individual and social life have to take place when trying to define normality and health, but, enumerating a series of qualities and conditions remains patchwork, and, it will keep falling-apart, until we have tackled the much more fundamental problem of the nature of our own existence.

Obviously, a detailed discussion of each of these aspects is not possible in an essay, where we want to focus upon the abnormalities and criminality of human behaviour-patterns. Besides, we have discussed these topics before, and, we can restate, here, quickly, the major concepts we have formulated on the basis of scientific insights and logical considerations.

We know something about the way we function, and, we know a little more about the way man began to form conscious mental images. These conscious mental images became communicable with the help of symbolic representations and they became, eventually, a vehicle for "belief structures", including an awareness of this sense of reality we call "the truth".

We live in a sea of mental images, and, all our perceptions of reality, including the imagery of the sciences, are clothed in these images. It is, therefore, useless to argue about a reality that may or may not exist apart from the existence of the human being, because all these speculations are only products of a fertile human mind, and, these speculative thoughts are clothed in the same mental imagery made possible by human existence.

We do not deny the possibility, that a non-human form of living intelligence could see reality totally differently from the manner in which we perceive reality, because we certainly do not want to maintain, that, human intelligence is the only form of intelligence able to exist, but, at the present time, we have no convincing evidence that such an extra-human intelligence does exist.

At the current stage of our conceptual development, it seems reasonable to state, that, nature has experimented on earth with intelligent life, even, before the emergence of the human species, but, man seems to be the only surviving species to have developed the ability to conceptualise and to recall memory-traces with the help of representative symbols.

This leaves us with the question, whether or not another species may develop along similar lines, after the human species has become extinct. Well, we should not count on this. It is likely, that the extinction of the human species will be the result of an act of self-immolation on a global scale, and, this act of self-immolation is likely to be associated with very high levels of environmental toxicity, making the continued viability of many highly developed multi-cellular species' a matter of serious doubt.

We should also acknowledge the possibility, that the qualities of life are not limited to the chemical elements, combinations or mechanisms that evolved as a result of the processes of natural selection on our particular planet. There may be other combinations, or, different atomic elements, which could function as a basis for the qualities and possibilities necessary for the evolution of a living organisation.

The life processes originated from a set of fortuitous terrestial conditions, where a narrow temperature range, the fluidity of water, as well as the availability of suitable chemical elements, allowed a large number of chemical combinations and polymers with many slightly different physical, electrical and chemical properties, to explore their possibilities of existence. From this constantly changing protoplasmic sea, or "protoplasmic primordium", a combination of chemical reactions emerged, after a billion years or so, which was able to retain the integrity of its fragile machinery by channeling, continuously, a stream of energy throuh its systems, and, to renew its entire machinery, periodically, through a mechanism of reproduction by cellular or mitotic division.

We have discussed, how the reversing rivulets of captured solar energy were the main driving-force behind this gigantic natural experiment with biochemical evolution, and, we have a fairly clear concept about the conditions that must have existed in the early stages of the evolution of life, in spite of the fact, that most of our ideas are based upon complex deductions and inferences, rather than upon direct evidence from fossil remains.

These mental images will, probably, always remain somewhat speculative, because we have little in the way of fossil remains from the early beginnings of life, but, the supporting evidence from nearly every field of science, combined with the intelligent use of correlative images, make these ideas almost as convincing as direct observations of what was going-on in the early terrestial environment.

Eventually, we may be able to make this mental imagery even more plausible by imitating the natural experiment with biochemical evolution. This can be done by duplicating the conditions of early terrestial existence in a strictly controled, laboratory environment, but, regardless, how large we set-up such an experiment, it will always remain insignificantly small and short-lived compared to this global experiment that took place over a period of a billion years, or so, during the early phases of terrestial evolution.

Certainly, the imagery of the sciences are mental images, just as the images of our meta-physical beliefs, hopes and expectations are mental images, but, the emotional neutrality of the scientific imagery, as well as the fact, that the process of scientific observation relies nearly exclusively on our biological faculties, make it possible to agree about the validity of scientific images across cultural boundaries.

We can interpret the living organisation as a community of biochemical and biophysical substances, which explore, fluidly, the possibilities for a continued existence. Certainly, this is a rather summary definition of the living organisation, but, we have to get-on with the topic of our choice. We can only allude, here, briefly to the fundamental interpretation of the life processes, which is based, solidly, on evolutionary principles, but, in contrast with the more common contemporary interpretation of evolutionary mechanisms, I would like to give the symbiotic, cooperative or mutually inter-dependent aspects of the living organisation an equal position of prominence with the more obvious and better known principles of "competitive strife" and "survival of the strongest".

Let us, indeed, give a great deal of attention to the mechanisms of survival by cooperation and mutual inter-dependence, because we will fail to make full use of the imagery of an evolutionary origin of life, if we continue to emphasise, primarily, the competitive aspects in the struggle for existence.

The cell represents, indeed, a community of biochemical reaction-patterns that have found a possibility to exist through the mechanisms of inter-dependence, because, under present terrestial conditions, each biochemical reaction would be unable to maintain its existence on its own, outside the conglomerate of the living protoplasm.

Similarly, we may see a multi-cellular organism as a community of specialised, single cells that have also found a possibility to exist together, and, this existence, or "life", would be totally out of reach for each cell individually, outside the entity of the multi-cellular organism.

A population of single cells reaches, quickly, a level of density where competitive pressures start to inhibit further growth. Growth and reproduction are then off-set by an equal number of cell-deaths, and, from an initial phase of passive competition for the availability of food or energy-supplies, we see, quickly, a variety of evolutionary developments, ranging from scavenging and parasitism, to the active conquest and destruction of a living cell. The latter is the hallmark of an act of "predation".

Even amongst uni-cellular species', we see a large variety of inter-dependencies; from saprophytic or scavenging behaviour, (which is the ability to use some of the building-blocks from a dead and decaying organism), to symbiotic relationships, where the partners exist in a mutually beneficial state of inter-dependence. In parasitic behaviour the advantage of the relationship is weighted heavily in favour of the "parasite", to the disadvantage of the "host".

If a cell has become dependent upon the use of building-blocks that have been formed by another living organism, we enter the kingdom of "animal existence", because all animal organisms have lost the ability to photo-synthesise or put-together the required building-blocks from inorganic materials. (Photo-synthesis represents the ability to manufacture "organic" or preformed building-blocks from inorganic molecules, with the help of solar energy).

All animals are "obligate predators", meaning, that they have to kill other life, be it animal or plant-life, and, this fact of life makes the moral foundation for vegetarianism somewhat nebulous. Just because a plant does not have a nervous system, and does not show any evidence for a struggle to stay alive when "harvested", does not mean, that we are not killing a living organism that would "prefer" to stay alive.

While the sentiments behind vegetarianism are laudable because of its sensitivity towards many of the unnecessary destructive trends of human behaviour, we still have to sort-out the differences between sentiments and sentimentalities in our attempts to come to grips with our ethical choices and ecological considerations.

Many of our feelings and impulses are just that, feelings. They are based, primarily, on an intuitive feeling, that we are, somewhere, wrong in what we are doing, but, we are still unable to shape our attitudes and behaviour-patterns with a completely thought-out, lucid and rational structure of opinions, judgements and beliefs.

Multi-cellular communities are beautifully efficient societies of cells, where the member-cells have learned to cooperate with each other and to distribute the chores of survival over themselves, but, at the level of contact between multi-cellular communities or organisms, the behaviour reverts, once again, to a status of competitive strife. This happens invariably, whenever a group of living organisms with similar requirements begins to compete for the existence possibilities present within a certain ecological environment.

Here, we see an important principle, which we have often discussed before. An organisation of complementary possibilities of existence, which has already formed a symbiotic, organisational unit "internally", (such as biochemical substances within the protoplasm of a cell, or, a community of cells within a multi-cellular organism), may, eventually, begin to explore, once again, the possibilities given by cooperation, inter-dependence and task-specialisation.

If this search is successful, a break-through may occur onto a completely different level of existence, and, the individual entity of existence becomes then submerged in the community or society as a whole, because the possibility for the individual member to exist apart from the community or the multi-cellular organisation, is usually lost quite rapidly.

All we see, then, is a highly organised entity of existence, the cellular community, and, this community of cells becomes the "new individual". As a human being, we are an example of such a multi-cellular society that has found its viability, not only, in the security of multi-cellular existence, but also, in the developments of "behavioural flexibility". (The latter is represented by the ability to learn from past experiences, and, this ability evolved, for the species of mankind, into an ability to communicate mental awarenesses with gestures, words sentences and other symbols that represent our conscious, mental imagery).

It is the nature of every living organism to search for conditions that are most beneficial to it. The animal world has been able to give-up the rather cumbersome processes of manufacturing building-blocks from inorganic materials, or "photo-synthesis", in favour of the "ability to move". Yet, the conditions that are most favourable to an organism always bring-about some sort of a disadvantage as well.

A population of organisms will grow and divide quickly to the point, that, at least, locally, the energy-supplies become scarce, and, the waste-products begin to build-up. A living organism will, therefore, "fill" an ecological niche or "possibility of existence" to the point of exhaustion or pollution, and, this brings us to the concept of an "ecological balance".

Living organisms exist in an apparent balance of contradictory force-fields, if their force to grow and expand is counter-acted by environmental pressures and limitations, which off-set growth and expansion with an equal number of deaths and disintegrations.

This is the reason, why optimum conditions for a community are not identical with the optimum conditions for individual existence, and, we see, always, conflicting trends between the optimum conditions for a socially integrated grouping and those of an individual member of such a group.

When a group of socially integrated members becomes an individual on a higher plane of existence, such as a biochemical reaction becoming part of the individuality of a cell, or, the cell becoming a part of a multi-cellular individual, we see, that the behavioural possibilities of the members making-up the new individual, have to be restrained and regulated, in order to avoid dangerous and disruptive patterns of behaviour, which could endanger the viability of the community of the new individual as a whole.

At the same time, we see, that, all the members of the community forming a new entity, have to have a possibility to exist, and, we note, also, that each member has to exist within the community of the new individual entity. This principle is easy to recognise, when cells are organised into a multi-cellular organism, because such a specialised cell can not exist outside the community of cells, just as it is impossible for an astronaut to exist outside a space-ship, when a number of astronauts would form a coherent social entity engaged in a voyage through space.

But, in most conditions on earth, the human being can still exist in varying degrees on his own, and, yet, throughout history, man has always experienced the need to cooperate and live together. There has always been a variable or fluctuating balance-point for a condition of maximum well-being, or "optimum equilibrium", especially, for the human being. This optimum equilibrium tends to gravitate towards the cohesion of a tightly-knit social unit in times of stress, when the existence possibilities for members in isolation are dramatically diminished, but, in times of affluence and ease of existence, the controls for individual behaviour are being relaxed and the behaviour-patterns of individual members begin to diverge.

Individualistic trends re-emerge, because individualised behaviour-patterns are obviously far more satisfying than the more esoteric goals of social cohesion, and, the absence of strong, genetically encoded behavioural instructions for viable, large-scale social integration, makes us always glorify the process of individualisation and differentiation, after we have successfully overcome the challenges upon our existence by forming some sort of a communal entity.

We have to acknowledge these mechanisms and trends towards individual differentiation, and, we have to acknowledge, that it is healthy, and normal, in times of stress, to control our behaviour; to streamline our goal-patterns and to emphasise our common interests and common lines of defense, while, in times of affluence, we should consider it normal for people to become more indvidualistic; to pursue more egocentric pleasures, to clash, more often, in conflicts of interests, and, to explore a variety of possibilities of existence.

We have to learn, however, to what extent this trend towards individualisation can be tolerated, without risking the loss of cooperative behaviour-patterns needed for our existence and survival. We have to learn to appreciate, clearly, that we still need to preserve the structure of our society during times of affluence and well-being, otherwise, the communally given possibilities of existence will collapse within a generation or two.

The most important insight we have, as yet, to acquire, is the idea, that the greatest scope for individualisation and differentiation can only come within the guarantees of communal security. We can only explore, individually, a variety of interesting avenues of development, as long as we can trust, that the social structure is not going to collapse around us and trap us in a position of high vulnerability.

We still have to learn to distinguish between individualising trends that tend to make us more diverse, but, at the same time, more inter-dependent, and, those individualising trends, that only lead to a slow increase in mutual alienation, suspicion and hostility. The latter happens, whenever our individualising trends become, surreptitiously, an exploitation of powers and privileges that belong, in essence, to the community as a whole.

We still fail to see all these mechanisms, and yet, we can draw, now, a fairly accurate imagery of the essence of life, including the main principles of our own existence. We can now make a distinction between the conditions we need to stay alive and physically healthy, and, those circumstances which allow or encourage us to become unproductive, lazy, self-centered, anxious or belligerent.

We know a little about the numerous goal-patterns we set for ourselves, partially, as an expression of our biological needs to stay alive, but, largely, as a result of our ambitious vitality, growth pressures, feelings of well-being and vigour. These mechanisms have been fueled by social success and the dramatic lowering of the energy-expenditures necessary to maintain our basic existence.

We have now some ideas about the differing roles played by our biological and cultural heritage, and, we have some insights into the complex layering of human motivations and ambitions. One aspect is quite clear. Almost every child has the potential to grow-up into a productive, trusting and well-motivated human being, who could be a significant asset to his or her community, but, in our affluent societies, a majority of people have become anxious and defensive, because they have been "burned", often, several times, by the unscrupulous elements operating freely in the social environment.

These unscrupulous elements are able to prey on the gullibility and good-will of ordinary people, because social mechanisms fail to protect the members from ignorance and exploitation. We still have to learn to recognise the gigantic impact upon everyone in society, if we allow unscrupulous elements to poison the life-giving attitudes of good-will and trust.

It is indeed sad to see, how often unscrupulous attitudes are hailed as clever business practices, even, by those who have been burned. People become then "converts" to the process of unscrupulous exploitation for egocentric gain, because they have subconsciously concluded, that it is the only way to survive. As a result, unscrupulous attitudes and behaviour patterns continue to spread throughout most of the affluent, free-enterprise societies.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Behavioural flexibility, and the need for a family-unit.
A review of the evolutionary developments of early man.
Contradictory trends in the make-up of the human personality.
An ambivalent "art of deception".
Why it is difficult for members of a large social grouping to know each other intimately.
Cultural specifics; seen as "aids" for recognising each other as belonging together.
Abstracting general principles of conduct.
Population pressures, at the beginning of "civilisation".
We only tolerate each other at close quarters, if we have no other choice.
The rights and wrongs of behaviour.
Why the judgement of good and evil has to be centered around the interests of a community.
An evolutionary and relativistic interpretation of reality.

The species of man inherited a biological or genetic code giving each actualised member a great deal of choice in formulating a behavioural response. We are heir to this remarkable natural experiment with the quality of "behavioural flexibility", which was explored intensively, especially, in the mammalian species'. However, man has another important biological heritage, because the behaviourally flexible species', the anthropoids amongst others, explored, also, the possibilities of enhancing viability by a process of secondary social integration.

It is logical, that these two developments took place side by side, because an increased range in the variability of the behavioural response prepared the way for a differentiation or specialisation in the tasks and functions members of a social group have to carry-out. At the same time, behavioural flexibility led to a vulnerable infancy and youth because of the large number of behaviour-patterns that have to be acquired by "learning". This period of vulnerability during the period of maturation required a significant sharpening of the instincts of parental care, and, in particular, maternal care.

Behavioural flexibility is better suited to a condition of social integration than solitary existence, but, the "immediate" family-unit turned-out to be, by and large, too small and vulnerable to fulfill adequately all the criteria of viability. Natural selection seemed to have favoured, at least, in the anthropoid species`, social groupings of, perhaps, a dozen or a few dozen related members, while, at times, a family group dwindled to about half a dozen members, who were then precariously clinging to life.

Partly as a result of the complexity of multi-cellular indviduals with their large range of behaviourally flexible responses, and, partly, because of the absence of precisely encoded instructions for social coherence, the social integration of behaviourally flexible species' remained tentative and fluid.

As we mentioned, the most obvious trait which nature sharpened as an instinct into the anthropoids, was the behaviour of careful parental supervision and intimate maternal care, especially, for the vulnerable infant, because anthropoid infants need such a long time to reach maturity and independence. However, there are other behavioural traits in anthropoids and humans, which show the influence of genetic endowment upon the mechanisms of social integration. For example, man inherited the ability to subjugate his territorial instincts by grouping himself into a hierarchical order. This allowed a greater degree of contact between mature individuals, and, it also allowed a differentiation between leaders and followers.

The ability to submit to a stronger individual and to follow commands became just as vital a characteristic for the enhancement of survival as the ability to lead and give commands, because either attitude would enhance the viability and well-being of the entire group.

When the early human being began to exploit the vast reservoir of large mammals as a source of food, their security and viability increased remarkably, but, they also came to depend upon the ability to hunt-down these larger animals. The viability criteria for early human behaviour patterns shifted, on the one hand, to a curious mixture of cunning and aggressiveness towards the large and powerful prey or human competitor, as well as the ability to care for, and share food with, the younger and weaker members of the group.

The ability to cooperate, care for, and share food was rewarded with an increased viability for the group as a whole, just as the attitude of courageous bravery in the hunting of the larger animals was a powerful factor in the equation of early human survival.

We still see these somewhat contraditory trends in the make-up of the human personality, and, it will help us to understand the requirements for healthy individuals and viable social units, if we continue to explore the imagery of our evolutionary past.

With the development of a conscious belief structure, man started to react to his sense impressions, not only, according to the cerebral classification mechanisms of his brain, but, also, according to his conscious beliefs. We have outlined before, how these evolutionary developments allowed the technique of a deliberate deception. A deliberate misrepresentation could now be used as a powerful weapon, when trying to bring-about an erroneous belief or reality perception that was able to confuse or mislead an adversary.

We still tend to see the quality of "telling the truth" as a moral, religious or ethical principle of social interactions. At the same time, we are encouraged to adopt an attitude of faith and trust in the "Ways of the Lord", as well as the truthfulness and competence of our leaders.

However, the mechanisms of trust go further than a conscious reliance upon a leadership and the religious guidelines of a cultural code. We rely, implicitly, upon the truthfulness of our sense impressions and neurological judgement mechanisms. Can you imagine how poorly our tree-dwelling ancestors would have faired, if they would not have been able to rely, instinctively, upon their senses when swinging or jumping from branch to branch? Similarly, we still rely, automatically and nearly completely beyond the level of our conscious awareness, on the sense impressions that guide our movements when walking, climbing or carrying-out a complex motoric response.

We rely, instantly and unquestionably, upon the accuracy of what we perceive to be real, and, we know, how confused, disturbed and vulnerable we feel, if, on occasion, our senses play tricks and lead us to an erroneous or inconsistent interpretation of reality.

When man began to experiment with symbolic representations and the voluntary recall of mental images, this same sense of utter reliance must have been present, at least, initially. Only, later, when man's repertoir of symbolically representable images became so large, that it needed to be classified into categories of similarities, (with the subsequent abstraction of classifying principles and qualities), only then, began man to construct a deliberate and conscious structure of beliefs. Only then, could man become aware of the fact, that he could be "wrong"; whenever he adopted a belief that was incorrect, and, only then, became it possible for one clever human being to gain an existential advantage over another by deliberately manipulating and misleading the beliefs of someone else.

Here, we have the dubious art of "deception", but, it constituted an important break-through in the manipulative skills of man. The art of deception has contributed numerous sad pages to the history of mankind. We see this type of ruthless and deceptive behaviour come to the fore, time and again, in particular, as a prodromal stage in the decay of larger social units. However, the art of "trickery" or deception can also be enjoyed as an artistic achievement by an "illusionist", provided, that the rules are clear-cut, and the audience submits itself, knowingly to the clever deceptions of an entertaining magician.

We should review, briefly, the transition of the small human community into the much larger social unit. In contrast with the small, nomadic grouping, nature did not, and could not, prepare the members of the human species for a way of life that depended on a measure of social integration within a much larger social unit.

The small, nomadic group could function without consciously formulated or explicit guidelines. We have discussed, how such a unit maintained "automatically" its optimum size, and, how it organised itself into a hierarchical order with a leader and his followers.

The small nomadic grouping would grow, until it became "top-heavy". Then, a secondary leadership nucleus would form and split-off, together with a part of the membership. This nucleus would then drift away into neighbouring territories, leading a nearly independent existence from the parent group. We have drawn attention to the fact, that these mechanisms are reminiscent of the splitting of a cell in the mitotic form of reproduction.

In the much larger group, (which came-about, only, after population pressures began to prevent the simple solution of splitting-off and settling into unoccupied territories), we see a much more complicated internal structure. This is needed to give this larger group the possibility to function as a socially integrated unit.

One of the main problems in the larger social grouping seems to be the difficulty for each member to know all the other members of the community, and, to know each other's relationships in terms of hierarchical positioning. We also know, that it is important for each member to have, at least, some familiarity with the behaviour-patterns of others, and, too large a group means, simply, that many members will remain strangers to each other.

It is obvious, that these difficulties make it almost impossible to weld a larger group into a true social unit without special aids. These "aids" were provided, when man began to develop a set of cultural characteristics and guidelines. With the development of tools, weapons and utensils, special ways of dressing or behaving, the process of mutual recognition became easier, and, this trend towards recognising each other on the basis of cultural characteristics was expanded even further with the development of language and belief structures.

Then, the behaviour of members belonging to the same group could be streamlined by the common cultural pool the members were using, and, the mode of contact between people became encoded by symbols, notions, rituals and attitudes, which people, who belonged together, shared on the basis of having been brought-up on the same "cultural diet".

The ability to recognise and become familiar with a much larger group of people, lies at the core of the successful evolution of the much larger society, but, other developments took place as well, and, it is probably useful to remind ourselves, that this evolution took place, largely, out of necessity.

Cultural tools were developing at a fast rate, because they proved to be essential in holding a larger community together, and, these same tools provided the leadership with the technology to extend its control over a much larger crowd.

General principles of conduct became slowly abstracted from a series of specific judgements in disputes. The leadership structure became differentiated as the tasks for certain functions became delegated to different, specialised people, or, even, different groups of people. Elaborate rituals and complex belief structures were useful to unite the people in a common pattern of behaviour, belief and expectation, and, eventually, the break-through of the written language symbol took place.

It is not our purpose, here, to retrace the history of early human civilisation, because there are many expertly written and detailed accounts of the factual developments that took place, at least, as far as we can reconstruct these events from historical studies and archeological observations. The purpose, here, is merely to draw attention to the fact, that the development of the much larger society came-about as a necessity, when the human species had populated the earth, quite widely, in the form of a large number of successful social groupings that were getting more populous but still adhered to a nomadic way of life.

A significant increase in the density of the human population was, probably, one of the most influential turning-points in the history of early human development, because man was driven into larger and larger social units, seeking a possibility to exist with agricultural and organisational techniques, such as a common defense, the organisation of specific mechanisms for settling internal disputes, as well as the institutions needed to provide food and accomodation for a large community. All these techniques were essential in order to bridge the more adverse seasons of the temperate climates, or, to weather periods of severe stress, caused by competitive strife or acts of warfare with neighbouring societies.

Certainly, many nomadic tribes remained in existence and adhered to the more traditional ways of life, while larger population groupings occupying the most desirable and fertile lands, began a series of "cultural experiments", which we now summarise as the "first civilisations" of mankind. Security increased at the expense of a much denser concentration of people, and, this high population density must have led to numerous conflicts and tensions, as the peoples and their leaderships learned, slowly, to solve the many problems of living at close quarters without tearing the social structure apart.

When external pressures lessened, or, when dense population concentrations led to deteriorating living conditions as a result of internal strife or a lack of food, many people must have dispersed again into the country-site, and, we should, therefore, not be surprised to see, here, an important balance of contradictory forces at work.

We congregate or group-together, only, to the extent we have to, and, we are always evaluating, at least, subconsciously, the advantages and disadvantages of grouping ourselves into densely populated communities.

We have experienced essentially the same mechanisms for many thousands of years, but rarely, if ever, have we been able to discern, clearly, the common and recurring features associated with the cycle of birth, growth, maturation, stagnation and decay of social entities.

We have looked, frequently, for the influence of fate, or, we have postulated a whimsical disposition of the gods, or a sinful nature of the members of mankind, but, we are now able to grasp these phenomena in the concept of a "balance of forces or interests". If the balance of interests, or the criterium of viability, favours a tightening of social cohesion, society will grow, and show a vigorous development of cultural instruments and ethical guidelines, but, if the pressures for cohesion subside, we revert to egocentric concerns, which, eventually, weaken the society to the point, that it falls-apart into warring factions, or, such a weakened social entity will be taken-over by a more vigorous and aggressive neighbour.

The communal guidelines for individual behaviour develop, primarily, as a result of shared experiences, beliefs and attitudes. The members of a community hear the same stories, share the same existential interests, obey the same leaders, and pray to the same gods. As a result, they interpret the happenings in their society in essentially the same manner.

From this emerges, intuitively, and, largely, subconsciously, a system of "rights and wrongs"; of actions that are encouraged or frowned-upon; a series of do's and dont's. Some attitudes are favoured, admired and encouraged, while others are considered despicable, dishonourable or "taboo". If we review a number of the more primitive societies still in existence, we see, that there are indeed a large number of beliefs, notions and attitudes that can be classified as either "desirable" or "dishonourable".

From this pool of common attitudes, notions and ritualistic behaviour-patterns emerges, slowly, a pattern of more reasoned and articulated guidelines. These articulated or verbalised guidelines show the people, why a certain attitude or behaviour-pattern can not be tolerated in society, or, why certain patterns of belief and behaviour are beneficial and encouraged. The more rational guidelines become, eventually, a "code of ethics", or a "body of law", and, the process of judging members who have violated these laws and guidelines, evolves, slowly, into a specialised function that becomes separated from the religious institutions. Nevertheless, a keen observer will note, that almost every society has adopted a set of laws or guidelines, which is influenced, to a remarkable extent, by its religious beliefs or predominant reality perceptions.

If we think about it, we see, that it is impossible to expect differently. What is considered good or evil, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, depends, to a large extent, upon the way we perceive reality, and, in particular, on the way we perceive the nature of the human being. Because most of our reality perceptions are based upon religious interpretations, we can not expect the laws governing the behaviour of people to be free from such religious concepts and interpretations.

As we move slowly to a more evolutionary and relativistic interpretation of reality, we will see, also, a slow change in our reality perceptions, as well as a gradual change in our concepts about the nature of man and his societies. Eventually, these changes in our reality perceptions will be reflected as changes in the guidelines for human behaviour. Eventually, there will be significant changes in our concepts about the essence of a criminal offense, and, there will also be changes in our efforts to rehabilitate a criminal offender.

An evolutionary and relativistic interpretation of reality will allow us to grasp the common features or qualities that provide the strength, growth and purpose of a society, as well as the mechanisms that lead to its stagnation, fragmentation and decay. In addition, these modern images of reality allow us to formulate the conditions that are necessary to obtain a healthy, normal or optimum existence for the human individual, but, they also show us, why an unbridled and undisciplined existence is far from healthy and may have serious implications for the individual and his society.

An evolutionary and relativistic interpretation of reality allows us to see, more clearly, why the truths that have been recognised by good-willing people thoughout the ages, contribute to a status of collective and individual well-being. These insights show us, that man needs controls over his behaviour-patterns; that he has to face the stress of discipline as well as a challenge to his authority or well-being, in order to channel his vitality in constructive pathways of development, but, we also know, that man needs rest, relaxation, a measure of freedom as well as a chance to reflect. These conditions are necessary to digest his many sensations and experiences, and, to re-discover or modify the common wisdoms and guidelines of his generation.

Egocentric indulgence in consumerist sensuality is far from healthy and desirable, even, if the individual seems to prefer such a status above anything else, but, we still have to learn to make this conclusion convincingly clear to those, who believe in the virtues of modern, affluent consumerism.

Yet, a regimented belief structure, imposed by an unyielding authority, stunts human growth, and, a forcefully imposed belief will always result in an explosive anger against such oppressive and tyrannical practices, in particular, if it becomes clear, that the reasons for such a dogmatic indoctrination or absolutist attitude is primarily motivated by egocentric drives and anxieties on the part of a privileged and ruling elite.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

What an individual needs in order to be happy or content.
Why we grant each other "human rights".
The fragile and labile balance of a condition of essential equality.
Human rights, and the need to accept obligations and responsibilities.
A universally accessible system of education.
Man does not need the lure of assets, or money, to work hard and conscientiously.
Lawless leadership successions are on the way-out.
A sense of gratitude for belonging to society.
A resolute leadership.
Avoiding a slovenly adherence to the guidelines of the past.
We all need some stress and a measure of hardship in order to learn.
We are taxing our ecological niche to the limit.
Gifts, made-up of rights and beneficial living conditions require a consistent, collective effort to make them possible.
Taxing fairly, means, not to tax primarily those, who are willing to contribute.
The level of understanding by future generations.
Work will be a privilege, because people will consider it a privilege to be a member of the global society.
Contributions will be in line with the natural life-cycle.
Future generations will understand themselves much better than we do now; if not, they will not be around for long.

One of the most interesting questions we can ask ourselves is the following; what is necessary for an individual to lead a happy and healthy life in society, and, what sort of behavioural guidelines and constraints are necessary to ensure that a social environment remains healthy, after the conditions of security and stability have been fulfilled.

Obvioulsy, every member will, first of all, have to receive the minimum requirements for physical and mental well-being, and, this means, that, no-one should have to go hungry, be without a shelter, or, without access to a good education. If these conditions would be met for everyone on earth, we would already have a sound basis for a healthy and happy life, because it would go a long way to creating a condition of essential equality on a global scale.

Why, then, is it so difficult to create and maintain these conditions? Why do a few people, eventually, wind-up with most of the assets of a community, while many others scrape barely the essentials together in a position of enslavement to the wealthy elite? Is it unavoidable, that a few clever and hard-working people always end-up with most of the assets? Is it inevitable, that a majority of the people becomes impoverished?

We seem to have little evidence from history to assume, that, every member in society is able to hold-on to a position of essential equality, even, if the members have been placed in such a position of essential equality from the beginning.

We will discuss the many and complex mechanisms that tend to disrupt or distort a position of essential equality between the members of a community in the following chapter, because these mechanisms are intricately related to the reasons for criminal behaviour-patterns.

Let us concentrate, here, on the idea, that a reasonably equal distribution of the basic assets should provide every community with the possibility to eliminate hunger and poverty, to foster a sense of responsibility and dignity, and, to provide its members with a shelter for bringing-up a family under decent living conditions.

The main point we want to discuss, here, is the need for an educational system that teaches every member the responsibilities that go with the distribution of a position of essential equality. There will always be some, who are quicker, more clever and more apt to be in a leadership position than others, but, there is no reason, why a community has to condone the persistent trend for the more clever and powerful people to dominate and exploit a majority of average individuals.

A competent and universally accessible system of education should be able to teach nearly everyone a set of basic principles, outlining the rights and obligations of citizenship. There is nothing wrong with the concept, that the conditions of living should be nearly equal for everyone, regardless of position, power and privilege, and, that the contributions people have to make towards a society are based upon skills, talents and opportunities.

No-one will argue, that, someone, who is incapable to occupy a position of leadership, should be given such an opportunity, just for the sake of "equal opportunity". However, we all have to eat and sleep and, we all need a shelter. Therefore, these conditions should be distributed essentially equally amongst the population, and we should all be provided with the opportunity to live in a state of good health.

Let us lay to rest the erroneous concept, that man needs the prospect of large financial rewards, or the reward of power and privilege, in order to be motivated to work hard, either for himself, or the community as a whole. This philosophy reflects an erroneous interpretation of human nature, and, it reflects, also, a low level of satisfaction for people working in affluent, Capitalist societies.

Certainly, the drive to acquire power and assets is a strong and natural motivation, but, there is no reason why the societies of the future would be unable to regulate the mechanisms of acquisition more carefully. We have already accepted, by and large, that the position of overall political leadership has to be based on the support from the people, won in fair and free elections, but, we have to regulate, also, with Constitutional Guidelines, the amount of assets and financial holdings an individual or company can own.

We have been reasonably successful in taming the lawlessness of the struggle for political leadership, at least, in societies that adhere to the rules of fair, free and democratic elections. We have to regulate, now, much more carefully, the limitations of power and wealth, at least, in the affluent and Capitalist societies, which still live under the illusion, that the incentive of free-enterprise and big profits will, somehow, cure the frustrations and tensions these affluent societies are beset with.

We are slipping, once again, into a discussion of what can go wrong with a position of essential equality. In stead, we want to concentrate, here, on the basic principles that make it clear, why, at least, from a theoretical point of view, it is not difficult to design a essential equality in living standards and educational opportunities for everyone. A status of essential equality should go a long way towards giving everyone a sense of justice and purpose, or, even, a sense of gratitude and enthousiasm for belonging to society.

Let us look at the requirements for the continuation of a status of social health, after a social entity has overcome most of its initial struggles to become established. In the initial stages of the evolution of a social entity, there seem to be few problems. The need to group together, and, to seek security in cohesion and task-differentiation is clear, at least, intuitively. The leadership is strong and resolute. There is a clear definition of what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, and, we see in many growing societies this invigorating but aggressive confidence, which may be such a blessing to its participants but may also become a menace to weaker neighbours!

Yet, even, in such a vigorous society, it does not take long for the processes of stagnation and decay to set in. Within a time-span of one or two generations, the attitudes have changed. Vigour and confidence have disappeared, the ideals of social togetherness have been abandoned, bickering and egocentric pleasure-seeking are on the up-swing, many of the confident belief structures are neglected, and, we see the familiar signs of an impending collapse come to the fore, as the qualities of mutual respect, cooperation and trust recede into the background and are replaced by suspicions and hostilities.

Let us re-iterate, here, the idea, that, any plan of action to prolong the life-span of a successful social entity has to take into account the basic requirements necessary to maintain a social unit in a state of good health. This means, that the attitudes and behaviour-patterns of the generations born into easy and relatively affluent conditions, have to withstand the temptations of short-sighted, egocentric pleasure-seeking.

While it is unwise to force future generations into an attitude, which will make them, slovenly, adhere to the guidelines of their forefathers, we may be able to point-out, convincingly, to the subsequent generations, why societies tend to decay after a successful period of rapid growth and maturation. We may be able to teach future generations, patiently but expertly, what conditions led to the social success they are now benefitting from; a path of successful developments that was embarked-upon when society was still in a phase of growth.

We may be able to show the future generations, time and again, the responsibilities they have towards maintaining the basic structure and cohesion of society, and, we may show them, time and again, how horrible the consequences are, if they let their societies slip, unthinkingly, into a morass of chaos and decay.

We will have no guarantees that they will listen, and, they probably will not listen, until they have been reminded, a few times, from direct experience, that there is, indeed, an urgent need to remain vigilant and careful.

We have hinted upon the fact, that a society may experience a much more prolonged period of stability, if it experiences a balance between the pressures placed upon it from the outside, and, the sustaining powers, or growth-pressures, of the society itself. If we would be able to float, indefinitely, in the environment where we live, we would never learn to swim, and, our muscles would wither away as useless and superfluous appendages, but, if we have to exert, continuously, some effort to keep our heads above water, we will learn to swim. We will appreciate the muscles we have, and, we will also appreciate the fact, that we may rest for a while, after we have reached solid ground again.

It is very likely, that the future generations of mankind will have to struggle much more consciously and continuously against the dangers of pollution, waste and other harmful substances, and, for the first time, since the early evolutionary break-throughs of mankind, man will have found some sort of an equilibrium in his inter-actions with the environment.

With the break-through of human intelligence and the manipulation of tools and weapons, man became so dominant over the other animals and his environment, that he could expand, almost indefinitely, over the face of the earth. In spite of the need to organise himself into increasingly larger social groupings, man continued to gain mastery over his environment, which culminated in the technological explosion of the last few centuries.

However, this technological explosion, the vast numbers of human beings living at the same time, as well as the rising expectations for a healthy standard of living and a measure of affluence, all these factors will pose extreme pressures upon our environment, in particular, when we succeed, finally, in narrowing the gap between the poor and the rich.

This means, that the capacity of the environment to feed and house us, as well as its capacity to absorb our waste-products, will be taxed to the limit. In the future, man will have to spend far more attention and make many more conscious efforts to keep the environment relatively intact, or, at least, tolerably clean, and, this common pressure upon our ability to survive, will be one of the main reasons, why future generations will listen to us, and, why they will make sure, that they understand enough about the requirements of man and his environment to create a reasonably stable, reasonably just, and reasonably well-integrated society with global dimensions.

Future generations will understand, that each individual member of the global society has to have some idea about the manner in which society is able to give him or her this package of rights and guarantees. Each member has to know, that he or she may rightfully claim his or her privileges and position in society as a birth-right; as a right society gives to every member on the basis of having been born into the species of mankind, but, each member will also know, that all these rights and guarantees require an effort, as well as an act of cooperation, and, that, at some time, every member will be called-upon to make a contribution to his social environment.

Each member will be able to acknowledge, that, every gift from society has been made possible, because someone else made a contribution. Without this collective effort, and, without the realisation, that, someone, at some time, has to do some work in order for us to relax in comfort and ease of mind, we will begin this surreptitious process of social decay and mutual alienation.

Future generations will understand the need to remain open and trustful in their relations, but, they will also understand, that trust will have to be earned. It is ridiculous to expect someone to place a measure of trust in society, his fellowmen, or his leaders, unless this individual is in a position to verify, that this trust is deserved and will not be abused.

How can we expect people to trust each other, unless we make sure, that, each and everyone of us can scrutinise, at any time, the actions and dealings of someone else? If I am called-upon to give my trust to society, this society will have to guarantee me that everyone else is called-upon to give a similar degree of trust, and, that any abuse of this trust will be dealt with, swifty and justly, regardless, who is involved.

How can we be expected to contribute our share to society, to pay our dues, to work hard for the well-being of others, unless we know, that our willingness and gullibility is not singled-out for exploitation?

Nothing ruins trust and good-will more quickly, than the short-sighted policy, so often carried-out by even the most distinguished and enlightened leaderships, to take more from those who are willing to contribute, and, to relax the efforts to collect, or exact tribute, from those, who are more difficult to deal with.

At all times, there is the danger that justice, good-will and trust are injured and affronted again, primarily, by ignorance and laxity, because it takes quite a determined and persistent effort to secure and maintain a level of openness and justice within society by scrupulously maintaining a fair distribution of all the burdens and the privileges of the social contract of essential equality.

Future generations will understand, that man's real motivations come from a sense of security, justice and belonging. Future generations will know that most young and vigorous people are begging for a chance to engage their considerable energies in an effort they can believe in, and, it will be generally acknowledged, that the motivation for private profit is a perversion of these primary motivating drives.

Sure, as individuals, we want to know, that our existence is secure; that we are accepted as respected members of our social environment; that we have an equal opportunity, together with everyone else, and, we want to know, that social success will depend on talent and individual merits, and not, on whom we know or cater to.

If young people are basically secure, they will show an incredible willingness to work for the common good. While they still have a lot to learn about the possibilities of conflict and the temptations of corruption and egocentric gain, as a society, we will have to rely upon these young, healthy and vigorous people to do most of the heavy work for us.

Future generations will understand, that the work a member does, is, first of all, a privilege, and not a necessity to earn one's keep. Yet, one will also understand, that the real meaning of one's existence does not lie in the level of benefit one can squeeze-out of society. Such an attitude is irrelevant and irritating to others, and, no-one in his right mind wants to be considered an irritating nuisance; to be forgotten as quickly as possible after death.

We all hope, that, someone will remember us favourably, after we have passed-away and made room for the next generation, because this is the only hope we have to live-on a little longer, past the point of physical dissolution. This is the reason, why we will consider the opportunity to make a contribution to society, to be a lot more important than the benefits we can derive from it.

Work, or contributing to society will, indeed, be a privilege, but this does not mean, that we will never consider the task we have taken upon ourselves, or which have been assigned to us, as dull, routine, or unimportant.

Yet, as part of the overall principles of openness and justice, we visualise, also, a careful scrutiny of all the chores imposed upon people. We have to make sure, that the burdens are placed evenly, and, that people understand the meaning of their tasks. Future generations will understand that the necessary chores are divided, not only, according to skill and training, but also, according to the phase of the natural life-cylce of each individual.

In our youth, we will be called-upon to develop our physical, mental and intellectual talents as fully as possible, and, in our adolescence and early maturity, we will be asked to contribute the heaviest forms of physical labour. After a period of several years in a globally integrated "Civil Task-Force", people will, again, be given an opportunity to develop their talents and interests further.

After a period of several years of intensive study and training, these people re-enter the work-force of society, now, as highly trained specialists. According to talent and circumstances, people will be given an opportunity to do something different when they reach the mid-forties or early fifties, in order to prevent the feeling of having been cast permanently in a specific mold.

However, let us not explore these ideas, here, any further, because we have done so, on several occasions. From this brief survey of likely trends in the future, it is apparent that the future societies will be radically different from the affluent, Capitalist societies of today. They will also differ markedly from the societies that have been based upon Dogmatic Socialism, because these systems show many short-comings as well.

Many of the lesser develop social systems will soon be considered archaic and totally unacceptable, and, the military coup d'etat, the methods of political suppression and assassination, or elitist domination by one group or another, will be banned, for good, from the face of the earth.

Future generations will understand, much better than we do now, what conditions are necessary for a healthy collective and individual existence over a prolonged period of time, and, if they fail to understand these requirements and conditions, they will not be around for any length of time.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

It is easier to state, how the members of society should behave, than to understand, why they do not behave accordingly.
A limited ability to identify with those who suffer.
Corruption is, in essence, a return to egocentric attitudes.
The gigantic crimes of negligence and inertia.
The right, and obligation, to interfere in a situation of injustice.
It is a crime to allow the existence of corrupt and abusive leaderships.
Suing for "mal-practice", when a situation of justice has been perverted by an individual, a group, an institution, or a leadership for their own benefit.
Avoiding hasty and erroneous judgements with the help of complete and balanced information.
Emotional and non-emotional crimes.
Tax-avoidance and tax-minimisation.
The abuse of power and a position of trust.
The need for complete openness in society.
Self-discipline, bolstered by the knowledge, that everyone may scrutinise what we are doing

It is easier to define, how the ideal individual should behave, and, how the perfect society should take care of its members, than to understand, why it is so difficult to reach this beneficial situation, and, why it is so short-lived and prone to decay, almost as soon as it has been established.

In the remainder of this essay, we will make an attempt to understand and analyse the factors that make us, individually or collectively, tear-down the society that has nourished and sheltered us. We are, finally, focussing our attention on those regrettable attitudes that cause great harm to others and ourselves.

We have to come to grips with the boundaries between unethical and criminal behaviour, and, we have to draw, clearly, the limitations of individual behaviour, as well as the limitations of collective coercion and encroachment upon individual rights and liberties.

Yet, our collective sins are not limited to the unnecessary curtailment of individual freedoms. We also have to look at those incipient, hardly noticeable mechanisms of increasing injustice, which arise from neglect, ignorance and inaction. Not doing something that has to be done, is as much a crime as doing something that should not be done!

Let us look at the injustice that is perpetrated, if we, individually or collectively, fail to do what, we know, should be done. First of all comes to mind this gigantic inertia of the affluent segments of the world population as it takes note, occasionally, with a quick tear in its eyes, of the plight of millions upon millions of depraved, starving and under-privileged people, only to be pulled-back into the world of egocentric problems and concerns, a minute later.

This is a good example, where we know, and agree, that the situation is unjust; that it is a disgrace and intolerable, but, no-one does anything about it, nor, does anyone know, what to do about it. We may engage in patchwork, dispatching hundreds of millions of dollars of "aid" to the poor countries, only to learn that a small fraction is applied to the needs of the people, while the rest has enriched unscrupulous, corrupt and incompetent officials. (I just heard, that, about a third of the total outstanding debt of the third world is being held in overseas bank accounts for those rich and unscrupulous usurpers in the under-developed countries!)

Sure, the blame for under-development and deprivation rests as much with the leaderships of these under-developed countries as with unconcerned leaderships and affluent people in the industrialised societies. Many leaderships in poor and under-developed societies exist, primarily, for their own benefit, and, they turn a blind eye to the corruption of their officials, the plight of their own people, as well as the greedy bribery of powerful friends and allies, who support these leaderships for the sake of commercial interests or strategic advantages.

To allow these situations to persist constitutes a crime on a gigantic scale for which leaderships throughout the world will be held responsible, and, it is the main reason, why we, the ordinary people, who are more than willing to help if we can, have been unable to correct this crime of neglect.

The main problem for us, ordinary people, is the fact, that we have been unable to fathom the powerful forces that benefit from a maintenance of the unjust status-quo. Our leaderships look, primarily, to their own interests, as well as the interests of the communities under their jurisdiction. The leaderships of exploited countries often rely on support from the richer, exploiting countries to stay in power. As a result, the workers, the peasants, as well as the average, hard-working people in these under-developed nations receive only a fraction of the monies that have been paid for their products, or, have been received as aid from the more developed societies. On the other hand, officials, merchants, multi-national corporations, and, often, the leaders themselves, receive an extra-ordinarily large share of the limited resources and incomes as a result of the power and influence they wield.

We should demand to know, exactly, why the poor remain so poor, why the leaderships of the poor seem so insensitive to the plight of their own people, why some leaderships are willing to destroy a country and drive the population to starvation and utter despair for the sake of military power and political control.

We have to know, why our leaders condone the massacres perpetrated by other leaderships against their own peoples, and, we have to ask our leaders, where they got the idea, that it is absolutely wrong to interfere in the affairs of another country.

Certainly, if the interference takes the form of a conquest for egocentric gain, for commercial exploitation, or political dominance, such an interference is unjust, but, if the interference is carried-out for the sake of the people, to stop a massacre, or, the unjust practices of a corrupt and illegal leadership, then, there is nothing wrong with interfering, in particular, if the interfering country invites impartial, international observers to make sure, that a truly representative and competent leadership comes to power through fair and free elections.

Would we watch helplessly and do nothing, if one of our neighbours would grossly abuse one of his family members? Certainly, it would be wise to get acquainted with all the facts, before we act, and, we should make sure, that our interference is truly for the benefit of this family, but, there is no reason, why information, careful study and a calm plan of action would not result in a type of interference that could be accepted as fair and reasonable by everyone concerned.

To allow grossly corrupt and incompetent leaderships to persist, in particular, when they maintain themselves by force rather than by popular support, is a crime of neglect, and, we may as well get used to the idea, that this concept of "crime by neglect" is going to play an ever greater role in our thinking, as well as in the organisation of future societies.

If a country supports a corrupt and unjust leadership for the sake of obtaining valuable commodities or strategic advantages, the crime of neglect is compounded with the crime of active complicity in the exploitation of a population, which is a major crime against the principles of global justice.

The same principles apply within a society as well, because a leadership that fails to correct, actively, a situation of injustice, is vulnerable to the crime of neglect, in particular, if it has recognised, clearly, that there is a situation of injustice, and, if it has some means at its disposal to carry-out corrective actions.

Just as a physician can be accused of, and sued for, mal-practice, whenever he or she fails to institute decisive measures to arrive at a correct diagnosis and institute proper treatment, so should we hold the leaderships of each and every country liable for criminal negligence, whenever they fail to take active steps to diagnose and correct the situations of injustice as they come to the fore.

This may sound harsh and somewhat far-fetched in a society, where we have not even begun, as yet, to develop a clear concept about a "situation of injustice", let alone, any clear ideas about how to correct such a situation, or, whom to hold responsible for it, but, in a future society, many of these ambiguities will have been clarified.

Then, we will have a much better idea about rights and obligations, and, we will have a far greater access to all sorts of information. It will then be much easier to scrutinise and judge a situation, and, it will be easier to decide, whether or not a situation of injustice exists, and someone or some group is being mistreated. It will also be much easier to decide, who is supposed to look after a particular problem, and, naturally, it will also be easier to lay the blame on someone's doorstep, if nothing has been done about a situation of injustice.

Yet, with the much greater availability of all sorts of information, it should also be possible to dispel, much earlier, unwarranted fears, that an injustice has been done, and, it should also be possible to see, that, on occasion, an apparently clear-cut case of injustice turns-out to be far more complex, as different interests, rights and obligations clash in a complicated pattern of contradictory force-fields.

We all have to learn to weigh the arguments carefully, and, we all will benefit from an ability to examine the facts and aspects of a situation carefully, and from all angles, in order to avoid hasty and superficial conclusions. This ability will have to be developed through careful training, and, it should be an important subject in every educational program.

The main idea is, that we have the right to be free from unjust treatment, but, we have the responsibility to scrutinise, and study carefully, each situation we are confronted with, regardless, whether it affects us personally or only indirectly, and, if we have some means of helping to solve a situation of injustice, it is our duty to do so.

The more responsible our position in society is, the more important this obligation becomes, and, if we are officially entrusted with powers to administer public affairs, we have the obligation to study, carefully, all situations of possible or probable injustice that are coming to our attention. This is the main idea behind the concept; "a crime of neglect".

Let us turn our attention, now, to a somewhat more conventional form of crime. Most societies have accepted the concept, that each individual has a right to exist free from physical violence or threats of violence and damage to his property. Many criminal offenses involve violent and other unjust forms of behaviour, which are the result of emotional outbursts, rather than planned actions. Many "softer" crimes or near criminal provocations by the potential victims are not punishable by law, but, a good and conscientious judge looks carefully into the background of each criminal act in order to become aware, as much as possible, of the motivations that lie behind a criminal offense. While provocations usually do not justify a criminal act, it does point to the old wisdom, that, in a quarrel, both sides are to blame.

The non-emotional crimes are becoming much more common, as the level of exploitation rises in a decaying and crumbling society. This field forms a gradual transition from a grey area, which is not considered to be outright criminal, at least, not by contemporary standards, to an area that is explicitly covered by criminal law. Usually, this grey area is concerned with minor forms of deception, fraud, discrimination, exploitation and all sorts of "pressure tactics", and, these practices border on the criminal aspects of human behaviour.

Let us look at a simple example. We all are tempted to pay less taxes than we ought to, and, few of us would see this as a criminal form of behaviour. Yet, we praise as clever the legal methods to minimise taxes, while we frown on the common fool, who makes the mistake of hiding taxable income clumsily. Our motivations are the same, and, our intentions are the same. One method is "acceptable", while the other is not. Such a distinction shows us, how little we understand the reasons behind the laws, and, how little we trust, that our taxes will be made good use of.

True, incompetence in government bureaucracies or government decisions, leading to waste, fiscal irreponsibilities, gross deficit-financing and financial favouritism in the form of selective election promises or patronage from a political party in power, all these practices will have to be considered illegal and criminal in the future. Governments and their officials will have to accept a much greater degree of fiscal responsiblility, openness in financial transactions, as well as a real possibility of having to face criminal charges, before public trust in governments and leaderships will return.

A major area of criminal behaviour is the abuse of power and trust. Certainly, anyone entrusted with a position of privilege and responsibility should be made accountable to the public for any apparent or real abuse, or, any evidence for incompetence, but, our legislation outlining the limits of criminality, and, in particular, our ability to collect data to prove the occurrence of abuse and incompetence in one form or another, is grossly inadequate at the present time.

In the future, this will be different, because it will have been recognised, then, that it is the combination of incompetence, inertia and the suspicion of fraud, which transforms most of our social attitudes into a cynical shrug of the shoulder.

What a glorious sight would it be, if we could look into this future, and see, how our leaderships are backed by a highly competent, completely open system of computerised information centers, together with a staff of experts who supply the leadership, the Parliamentarians and every interested member of the public, quickly and completely, with information about any topic of common interest.

Gone will be the days, that we do not know, what our neighbour is doing; what he earns, or, what he possesses. Gone will be the days, that bureaucrats have to hide in shame from public scrutiny because of the confusion, inertia and incompetence that permeate the whole system. Gone will be the days, that our leadership huddles in secret cabinet meetings or makes secret deals with other countries. Gone will be the days, that a leadership tries to get secretly information from other societies, or spies on its own citizens when suspecting subversive activities. Everything will be in the open. We will not have to guess or speculate, anymore, but, neither can we hide our assets, intentions or dealings with each other.

If we cheat or deceive someone, the whole world may know about it, almost instantly, if, it happens to be interested in what we are doing. It will not be possible, anymore, to entice someone else to buy our products with clever advertising gimmicks or to persuade someone to go into debt. Organised crime will be wiped-out, because there is nowhere to hide, and, we will have come to grips with the problems of drug abuse and pornography. We will have re-discovered the virtues of discipline and self-discipline.

Gone will be the days, that we were trying to hoard food and other commodities, fearful of an impending social collapse, and, gone, too, will be the days, that we were stampeded into a mad rush to spend all our monies, because we had lost confidence in the value of our currency, as well as in the leadership of our country.

We will see, in the next chapter, how we can regain confidence in our currencies, and, how we are going to make sure, that governments carry-out a sound fiscal policy. We will compare the curious discrepancy between the equalisation of political power, which has already been generally accepted throughout the affluent societies, and, the disparities in economic power, which still persist and are often inadvertently encouraged on the basis of erroneous free-enterprise practices and beliefs.

The free-enterprise societies still allow their citizens and corporations to develop a marked disparity in wealth and assets, in the mistaken belief, that the well-being and security of these societies depend on a frantic economic cauldron of activities, as well as the accumulation of capital in the hands of a wealthy elite.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Utopian dreams that are becoming urgent and realistic objectives.
A social structure always needs re-evaluation and new ideas.
Slowing-down the process of divergence between the successful and not so successful members of society.
Why the incidences of failure have to be drastically reduced.
A review of technical and economic developments in free-enterprise societies.
Entrapment is the main reason for deteriorating attitudes.
Fiscal policies and the experiences of the "Great Depression".
There is no reason, why "inflation" could not be abolished.
To "work hard", or "fight hard", is no valid claim to ownership.
The rewards for those, who are clever, successful and amibitious will be the burdens and responsibilities of leadership.
The benefits of free-enterprise and the objectives of Socialism will fuse in the near future.
A scrupulously regulated and maintained level of power for individual people, organisations or groupings.
Learning to live with regulatory mechanisms, and, wondering how we survived without them.
We all are guilty of unethical activities or attitudes, from time to time.

Many of my contemporaries would have laughed at my optimistic beliefs in the future, if they had bothered to read my works, but, I am not sure, how future generations will react to my faith in the future of mankind.

It may well be, that, they too, will laugh at these notions, because they may be as far from realisation as ever. It is also possible, that a movement into this direction has already taken place, and, my audience may then be somewhat surprised to learn, that these ideas provoked an unbelieving, cynical shrug of the shoulder, because they have a difficult time imagining their contemporary societies without the safeguards that have been outlined above.

In either case, it is worthwhile to contemplate these ideas, because a cynical shrug of the shoulder is only going to lead us deeper into the morass of chaos and confusion, because it is unlikely, that the cynics have a better solution to the problems of our time. On the other hand, if you belong to a fortunate generation that has grown-up in a society, where the mechanisms of global justice and fairness have already been put in place by your ancestors, it is necessary to think about the efforts that were needed to bring-about a just society, and, it is important to think, seriously, about your responsibilities to preserve this heritage and build upon it. A social structure is never "finished"; it always requires thought and re-evaluation.

Let us resume the discussion about the equalisation of political power. This came-about when the power of arms was replaced with the power of the universal franchise to vote for the leadership candidate of one's choice. One man or women, one vote. We have not recognised, as yet, the full implications of the power of wealth and assets. We have to ask ourselves, why people have continued to allow the inequality of wealth in many affluent societies, while accepting, now, almost without questioning, the wisdom of the equality of political power, the equality of human rights, as well as the right to equal treatment under the law.

Certainly, most of the countries that champion the ideas of free-enterprise and the incentive for profit, have realised, that the process of divergence in the accumulation of assets or wealth has to be slowed-down, otherwise, social tensions rise, quickly, to a boiling point.

Slowing-down the divergence between those, who are clever and ambitious, and those, who are gullible and easily exploited, has been accomplished by a system of progressive taxation, subsidies and tax-credits to the poor, family allowances, pensions and social insurance benefits of one sort or another.

Nevertheless, the rich and the poor keep diverging, in particular, when inflation hits hard. The wealth of those, who have large holdings in land, real estate, natural resources or inventories, increases, while the average individual with a savings-account, a few savings bonds, or a pension with a fixed income, suffer from a steady erosion of their living standards.

The main reason, why affluent societies have allowed this process of divergence in wealth to continue, is based on the philosophy, that a freedom to experiment with economic and technological possibilities will lead to an efficient growth of the economy and its technological applications. These developments may, eventually, benefit every member in society, because a benevolent and fair government attempts to spread the benefits of economic and technological developments to everyone.

This has indeed happened, at least, to some extent, and, in those societies, which had room to expand, it was indeed possible for most hard-working and ambitious people to build themselves an "empire", or, at least, a comfortable niche in the "jungle" of free enterprise.

However, the time has come to look at the consequences of the theory of free enterprise, together with the resulting technological and economic developments. The rate of economic and technological expansion has been accelerating, and, we have come to realise, that there are severe limitations in the availability of some natural resources. Even more important are the limitations in the ability of the terrestial environment to absorb all the waste-products created by human activities and enterprises.

The divergence in wealth has created an unnecessarily high level of consumption by a small but significant segment of the world population. This has increased the gap between the poor and rich on an international scale, and, the disparities have become so strident, that, many people in the poorer nations are unable to obtain, even, a minimum level of health and well-being.

Disparity also had a detrimental effect on the peoples in affluent societies. The ever-expanding economies became increasingly dependent upon continuously rising levels of consumption, and, the people became indoctrinated in the attitudes and practices of "consumerism", where the accent of social success came to rest on an ever-rising spiral of ostentatious consumption.

Naturally, this led to serious tensions, because people were constantly enticed to enter into debt, trapping them into a position of near-slavery, in spite of a level of affluence that was undreamt of in history. Because of these social tensions and the mechanisms of entrapment, the affluent nations became increasingly introvert and obsessed with the difficulties associated with maintaining a life-style of ever-increasing expectations. The affluent societies became incapable of concerning themselves, seriously and efficiently, with those, who were miserable, starving and oppressed.

An unbriddled economic expansion has led to a marked deterioration in the attitudes of affluent people, and, therefore, the viability of these affluent societies has been seriously affected. These societies are becoming unstable, ready to burst-apart at any moment.

When people become trapped, they become more anxious and defensive, because they are pressured to fulfill this never-ending round of financial obligations. They demand more and more income, but, at the same time, they are less and less concerned about the quality of workmanship or productivity that has to be delivered in return.

Governments are constantly pressured to keep this economic momentum going, because their tax-revenues depend on it. When a temporary slow-down of the economy takes place, governments pump more money into circulation, increasing the rate of economic expansion and undermining the value of their currencies.

It is clear to anyone, who wants to think about it for a moment, that the mechanisms of inflation are criminal in nature, because governments "steal" from those, who saved their money, and, also, from those who were promised a wage or a fixed amount of money in return for their labour or efforts. Even the high interest-rates that are brought-in, from time to time, to halt a run-away process of inflation, do not really attack the core of the problem.

Money is a substitute for the mechanisms of barter, where the parties are freed from the obligation to carry-out an exchange that matches the value of the items involved, as well as the different needs of the parties involved in a barter exchange. However, the acceptance of a universal, non-personal note of credit, which is the essence of "paper money", only makes sense, if the value of this money does not change over a reasonable period of time. For this reason, the State, or the leadership of society, became intimately involved in the issuing of these non-personal notes of credit, because its authority was needed to guarantee the value of such a note of credit.

The monetary system became possible, because governments guaranteed the value of their currencies, but, within the last fifty years or so, we have seen, that governments have been destroying the basis for the monetary system by relinquishing a guaranteed standard of value.

Historians will regard this as one of the most short-sighted manipulations of our times, in spite of the many short-time benefits that appear to be associated with the practice of enlarging, artificially, the supply of money.

When the accent falls on borrowing heavily and living beyond one's means, (which is practiced by governments, corporations and individuals alike), the attitudes of overspending become justified, at least, to some extent. This justification occurs as a result of the process of "inflation", which is an inevitable result of the loss of a guarantee of a fixed monetary value. Now, the borrower pays back less in value than he has borrowed.

The only way we can break the pernicious results of inflation or monetary devaluation, the rise of prices, and the erosion of wages and savings, is to restore the principle of a fixed value for money. As a preliminary step in this direction, the loss of monetary value can be compensated for, at least, to some extent, by tying the interest-rate to the rate of inflation. At the present time, these ideas are lumped together under the practice of varying the interest rate, but, by separating, clearly, the indexed capital from the borrowing charge itself, we should get a much clearer and fairer picture of the mechanisms of inflation and devaluation.

At the same time, let us remind ourselves, that the question, whether or not the value of money should be tied-in with a fixed value, has nothing to do with the mechanisms of social justice or equality in the power of wealth.

There is no reason, why inflation could not be brought completely under control, and, it does not have to be done, exclusively, through wage, price and profit controls, even, if such measures may have to be instituted temporarily. The crux of the matter is, that all governments have to go back to a gold standard, or, at least, to the principle, that the value of their currency is kept constant against a standard commodity, even, if it is just a standard collection of commonly purchased items.

The mechanisms of social justice and the contract of essential equality do not justify any sort of inflationary policies, since the measures of social justice have to be carried-out within the means of a society. We should abandon the idea, that everyone can be "brought up" to the level of those, who have been successful and have become rich. The contract of essential equality implies the application of a large number of regulatory mechanisms, making sure, that the living standard and essential requirements are more or less the same for everyone.

Certainly, the measures that are necessary to control the phenomena of inflation and devaluation are not popular, because they include, invariably, a number of belt-tightening measures, but, belt-tightening is nothing more, than the acknowledgement of a reality, and, the sooner we acknowledge the realities confronting us, the sooner we will be able to get a grip on them.

Gone will be the time for spiraling wage-demands or huge wind-fall profits, spiraling interest-rates and prices, or rising expectations, and, we will know, once again, that there is a definite link between productivity and the ability to spend money.

Money supplies can still rise, slowly, and in tune with the true value of the assets that can support the currency in circulation. Then, even in an open currency-market, the perceived value and the officially pegged value do not have to show a serious discrepancy.

We can not review, here, in any detail the various arguments for or against a free-market economy, but, we should be able to agree, that, even, in those societies that still believe, strongly, in the advantages of free-enterprise, more and more controls and regulations are becoming necessary to curb excesses and disparities.

I believe, that, in the future, most societies will abandon the mechanisms of free enterprise because of the many factors that lead to disparity and other forms of social injustice. Probably, it will remain alive, here and there, strictly controled by regulatory mechanisms, as people exchange locally produced products and services according to the forces of supply and demand.

However, on a larger scale, the processes of supply and demand will have to be carefully regulated on the basis of fairnes and justice. This includes such considerations as an essential equality in living standards, as well as a level of consumption that is sustainable for a prolonged period of time, without exhausting resources or over-burdening the absorptive capabilities of our terrestial environment.

If we agree amongst ourselves, that, peoples all over the world should have, at least, a minimum standard of living to ensure them a condition of mental and physical health, I can not see any objection to regulating the variability in assets or economic powers between people. If we fail to see, that wealth, or assets, are important forms of power and well-being, which are not available to the poor, then, we are naive and irrealistic.

Just as we can not accept, anymore, the argument, that someone can claim a piece of territory because one has "fought hard for it", so can we not accept, any longer, the argument, that an indiviual should be allowed a very large amount of wealth, just because he or she has "worked hard for it".

If an individual works scrupulously, honestly and fairly, it becomes increasingly unlikely, that he or she can amass a fortune, and, even, if one is able to gather a fortune in a way that is legally correct, financial or economic success is almost certainly a combination of clear insight, hard work and good luck. We have seen, how the poor always work a lot harder than the rich, and, the argument of hard work is, therefore, unacceptable as a justification for being rich. What about the arguments of clever insight and good luck?

Why should clever insight be rewarded with a life-long, or, even, generations-long advantage of privileged living conditions? Why should clever insight not be a talent or feature that should benefit the entire society. A leader of society certainly shows clever insight, if he leads his people through a difficult period, and yet, he is not supposed to use this clever sight for his own benefit!

What about the work opportunities which a clever entrepreneur or industrialist provides for the people in his environment? This is an argument that is used, frequently, as a justification for the continuation of the free-enterprise system. First of all, a strong tendency towards automation seems to defeat this argument, while the work that has to be done, will be done and will require a certain number of man-hours, regardless, who owns the factory or enterprise. Besides, the free-market economic boom has led to a large percentage of products and services we do not need at all, and, which we would be better of without.

Free-enterprise has been useful in giving us a very good technological and economic basis to make our existence, not only, possible, but, relatively easy, but, this does not mean, that we have to continue with such a poorly regulated form of social and economic growth.

We see, very clearly, how other considerations that fall outside the sphere of profit, now take priority, provided, we want to create a society that is more just, more liveable, and less tense. We have to go back to a life-style, where we consume what we need in order to stay in good health and become well-educated, and, where we are motivated by an awareness that we have to solve the problems of man on a global scale, if we want to give future generations a decent possibility of existence.

This means, that we will have to consider it criminal for anyone individual or group to occupy a position of privilege that is not available to everyone. This means, that we have to look, with a great deal of concern, at any life-style that exceeds the standards set for a healthy, globally available and acceptable level of consumption.

We will have to look, with disapproval, on any individual, or group, trying to exert more political influence than is provided by the principles of universal suffrage, and, similarly, we should evolve towards a society, where economic power, the power of wealth and assets, the power of showing off in an ostentatious way of life, will have been regulated to the same extent, as we have regulated the power to elect our civil and political leaders.

Such concepts may be horrifying to those, who have become dependent upon affluence, wealth and luxuries, and, who can not visualise a healthy or interesting way of life without the trappings of affluence. However, future generations may wonder, how we survived so long, without the regulatory mechanisms that will appear to them such an essential element for man's survival and the maintenance of a state of global justice.

In an essay about the societies of the future and the life-style of frugality, we will explore, more in detail, the projections for this future. Here, we like to come back upon a review of the concepts of criminality. The motivations for criminal behaviour have to be explored in more detail, as well as the vague boundaries between criminal and unethical behaviour.

What is the difference between ethical and unethical behaviour, and, when does unethical behaviour become criminal or diseased? What are the implications for society? How can and should we safeguard ourselves against the criminal acts or intentions of some members of society, but, as always, before we take preventive measures, it will benefit us to make an effort to study and understand the reasons for unethical and criminal patterns of behaviour.

We will learn, somewhat to our shame, that we are forced to admit to circumstances that border on a crime of neglect, whenever we are trying to prevent criminal or unethical behaviour. We will learn, that, as a society, we are frequently to blame, at least, in part, if we are confronted with the baffling motivations and acts of criminal behaviour, be it by a group or an individual.

We will also discuss, what to do with those people who are incurably criminal, and, who seem to be unable, or unwilling, to take the rights and concerns of others into account. We will see, that, psychopathic personalities with permanently deformed personality structures require a drastic, but, nevertheles, humane solution.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The two-edged sword of "interference".
Short-comings and their effects.
Future generations will recognise, that permissiveness and lax attitudes do not represent freedom, nor, a healthy way of life.
Social institutions and leaderships can also be guilty of crimes.
No recipe-book of "do's and don'ts"; we will have to understand the principles of just relationships.
Human behaviour-patterns and educational programs will be far more sophisticated in the future.
A dwindling distinction between unlawful and unethical behaviour.
A genuine mistake will never be a crime.
The importance of "dignity".
The attitude of "pride".
The problem of slander and the uttering of deliberate half-truths.
Criticisms will play an essential role to keep us on our ethical toes.
We may believe almost anything we want.
Borderlines with criminal behaviour.
Looking for a "kernel of truth" in every distasteful opinion.
Limitations of the right to lobby for privileges or favours.
The right to lobby for the correction of a perceived injustice.
The right to be free from coercion.
The power of the State to place or remove a duty.
A review of the institution of organised labour.
The crime of the enticement to overspend.
Constitutional limitations to the practices of lending and borrowing.

It seems worthwhile to emphasise, once again, that we may be doing wrong by actively interfering with the rights of others, or, we may be doing something wrong, passively, by not correcting a situation of injustice, whenever we know, that such a situation of injustice exists, and, whenever we are in a position to do something about it. Even, if we are not able to do anything about a situation of injustice ourselves, the least we can do is report its occurrence to those, who are responsible for correcting injustices in this particular field.

In addition to the rights and obligations of ordinary citizens, we carry, as officials, an additional responsibility for the tasks of a public function. Any function we carry-out on behalf of the social environment, regardless, whether it is voluntarily or imposed, carries the risk of the crime of "incompetence". Of course, if we are given a task we are not capable of, we can not be faulted for mistakes or short-comings, but, if we fail, even, partially, in a task that is well within our grasp to perform, we may be guilty of a crime of neglect, or, "insufficient effort".

You may be horrified by the picture we are drawing of the future societies, and, you may have nightmares of a wide-spread witch-hunt, where each member is watching the others for mistakes and short-comings. In a way, this is true, and, we will have to learn to live with a much more intense level of scrutiny of our actions and behaviour than we are used to, and, we will have to learn to be accountable for our actions and intentions to an extent we have never been before, but, why would this be frightening or horrifying?

Not only, will it help us to impose a measure of self-discipline on ourselves, (an attitude whose wisdom seems to be so easily forgotten), but, the accountability we all have to live with, will make it much easier to trust and rely upon each other. Certainly, we will live within clear-cut behavioural guidelines, and, the consequences of dishonest, sloppy or mediocre work, or deceitful and malicious intentions, will be grave, not only, for ouselves, but also, because of the harm it may do to others who trust and rely upon our work.

Nevertheless, within the limits set by Constitutional Guidelines upon the burdens that can be placed upon each and everyone of us, we will enjoy a remarkable freedom of action, as well as a relative freedom from want. There will be an openness and richness of contacts, as well as a dazzling variety of opportunities, making our confused and chaotic times of today look really dark and medieval.

Then, we will see, clearly, how we, in our mistaken efforts to create freedom by permissiveness and unbridled exploitation, locked ourselves, in reality, into coccoons of suspicion and mistrust, impoverishing our life-style and outlook, in spite of a wasteful abundance of all sorts of luxuries and opportunities.

If we can be guilty, individually, of active crimes of wrong-doing as well as passive crimes of negligence, so can society or the institutions be guilty of the same crimes, especially, if leaderships or collective attitudes lead, in one way or another, to an infringement upon the rights of others.

We will learn to be careful about our prejudices and sentiments, because a collective hostility or condemnation may inflict, not only, hardship upon a minority, but, we may, eventually, find ourselves on the defensive, if our attitudes, social institutions and leaderships stand accused by the international community of one crime or another.

Let us not give the impression, that we will, eventually, learn to live with a long list of "prescriptions", or a "recipe book" for good behaviour, which we will have to consult every time we make a move. Many aspects of unethical or criminal behaviour will be subject to a continuous review and debate, as our interpretations and insights evolve, and, rather than relying upon a set of specific instructions about what we can and can not do, we expect the members of future societies to be quite well acquainted with the principles of justice, rather than a large number of specific instructions.

Man's behaviour can, then, be regulated in a far more natural manner, because one knows the general principles of socially valuable behaviour-patterns, and, one understands the reasons for, as well as the mechanisms behind, the generalised guidelines that make human contacts a smooth and peaceful experience.

At the present time, we still tend to obey the letter of the law in order to stay out of trouble, because, we understand, very poorly, the reasons, why the law is there in the first place. We obey the law still rather grudgingly, and, it is not surprising, that the reasoning behind many rules and regulations escapes us, because, in many ways, the laws of society are backward, incomplete, unnecessarily complex, and poorly or inconsistently enforced, leading to an opportunity for clever lawyers to draw remarkable fees for their ability to manipulate the legal system.

In spite of the fact, that human behaviour-patterns and insights will have to be far more sophisticated in the future than they are now, and, in spite of the fact, that many currently accepted behavioural attitudes will be frowned-upon or considered to be unethical, (and, perhaps, even, criminal), the laws of society will be far more transparent than they are now. The laws will have been formulated along logical and generally applicable principles of conduct and interpretation.

Indeed, the distinction between unethical and unlawful behaviour will gradually disappear, and, we will only consider various gradations of right and wrong. Some behavioural acts will be considered highly desirable, or highly criminal, while others will be judged to be less extreme. Nevertheless, they will always fall somewhere on a scale of judgement that considers their ethical content, as well as their impact upon society, reflecting, in essence, the same concerns.

It is true, that we will have to carry a far greater degree of responsibility than we do now, but, we may also count on far more help when solving our problems, and, there should not be any need to carry the burden of making a difficult decision, completely alone. If we do not know, we ask, and, if we can not get a satisfactory answer to our problems or questions, we carry collectively the burdens of our problems, because there are no satisfactory answers available.

An honest mistake is, of course, never criminal; not even unethical, in particular, if a mistake was made when the best possible course of action had been carefully outlined and executed. In the future, we will be less burdened by disastrous miscalculations, because our sources of information will be so much richer, more accurate and more broadly based, and, our predictability will, therefore, be much more precise.

Yet, we will always have to accept a measure of uncertainty, when planning or executing a behavioural decision, but, we should be able to delineate the range of our uncertainties much more accurately than we can now, so that we will have some idea in what range of uncertainty the results will fall.

Let us look at a few other aspects of human relationships. We have discussed, briefly, how citizens are essentially equal, especially, in the way they are being treated under the law. They are also equal in their political influence through the principle of universal suffrage, and, they should be equal in economic power, in spite of the fact, that some will always be able to save a little more than others. Nevertheless, everyone should be able to fulfill the essential requirements of a healthy and dignified existence.

We should have a look at the concepts of dignity and pride, because they relate to considerations of equality and justice. Every citizen receives a large measure of dignity in the form of a package of human rights upon entry into the society of mankind, and, this package, including the right to life, extends to the pre-natal period as well. However, we have not really discussed the sense of self-worth, which can be manifested as "dignity", but also, as "pride".

Is pride less desirable than a sense of dignity, or, are we talking essentially about the same attitudes? As usual, a conceptual precision is lacking, at least, to some extent, and, we suffer, therefore, from a certain degree of confusion, whenever we try to analyse, compare or differentiate between the various word-symbols. Let us just say, here, that human dignity is not only determined by the acquisition of the package of human rights we are supposed to get as a birthright, but, it implies, also, an actualisation or realisation of this package as we grow-up and become a contributing member of society.

Only a reasonably healthy, well educated and well integrated member of society will be able to make a fair contribution to society, and, the attitudes that are reflected by the unfolding of a human potential can be summarised as a "sense of dignity".

Pride is a fiercer, more emotional attitude, which is primarily defensive in nature. In pride we see a reaction, or, perhaps, an over-reaction to an apparent insult to the dignity of an individual. While a normal defensiveness against an insult, or apparent insult, is a common human reaction, which may take place entirely within the limits of socially acceptable behaviour, in pride, we are somewhat fearful, that the reaction may overstep the boundaries of an appropriate response.

Let us be careful with pride. We may certainly value its role as a backbone to overcome a difficult situation or period, but, we should be careful not to lose flexibility. While pride will certainly help us to maintain our confidence and sense of self-worth, we are in danger of losing the ability to see the opposite point of view in the fierceness of our reactions, and, as a result, we may encroach upon the rights and dignity of others.

Closely related to these concepts and behavioural mechanisms are the behaviour of criticism and slander. In criticism, we apply a rational, well-founded analysis to a situation, an act, or an attitude, which points-out short-comings, possibilities for improvement, or, the potentially disastrous results of an intended or completed decision.

It is important, that criticisms are rational and balanced, because, only then, will it be possible to perceive them as justified, thorough and constructive. If criticisms remain emotional or one-sided, and, if they represent a vehement utterance of personal dislikes, we approach a stage of unjustified name-calling, which may be judged to be libelous or slanderous by on-lookers, as well as by those who have been placed, officially, in a position of judgement.

The key to a definition of libel or slander must be the fact, that the accusations are totally unfounded and could leave the on-looker with an unjustified unfavourable impression of the accused. The rights and dignity of those, who have been libeled, have been injured, and, therefore, libel or slander represents a situation of injustice.

In an open society, guided by the principles of essential equality, a strenuous effort is made, at all times, to protect the dignity and equality of everyone, and, it should not be necessary to make accusations that are only half-true, biased or designed to create a bad or unfavourable impression. If there are criticisms, it should be possible to document these criticisms, swiftly, with factual information that can be verified by anyone, who wishes to do so.

Since, in the future, all information is accessible to everyone, at all times, we will have one of the most efficient ways to preserve a balance of equality and justice, because we are all monitoring each other. Any deviation from accepted, ethical behaviour will quickly be pointed-out to us in the form of justified, well-documented, even, irrefutable criticisms. In this sense, criticism will play an essential role to keep us on our ethical toes.

While our behaviour will be watched, closely, to make sure, that we do not infringe upon the rights of someone else, we may believe almost anything we want. Certainly, as we have explained many times before, our behaviour is strongly influenced by what we believe to be true, but, the details, or, even, the fundamental questions about the existence of God and the possible influence of God in our lives, may well be left to each individual's discretion, since it really does not matter a great deal, how we see ourselves, as long as can agree about our ethical guidelines.

If we have a dispute about what we believe to be true, we are entitled to our opinions, as long as we agree, that others are entitled to theirs, and, mis-understandings, or, even, feelings of animosity have to remain just that; feelings, otherwise, we are overstepping the boundaries of each other's rights.

Let us look more closely at the problems of intellectual dissent. We have done so before, and, it should not be difficult to agree about the following statements. As long as our opinions, beliefs or statements do not lead to actions that are detrimental to other members in society, we have the right to believe and proclaim whatever we want, but, we should not be surprised to be criticised, quite sternly, about beliefs and opinions that seem to be contrary to socially accepted and commonly believed-in opinions.

At no time can an individual or group be muzzled for what it proclaims, even, if it seems to be successful in winning converts to what we would consider a false or erroneous view-point or philosophy. If we see, that other people are persuaded by a view-point we consider to be pernicious, we will have to study, carefully, the reasons, why this heresy is finding followers, and, we should, then, mount a strenuous verbal campaign to point-out the errors and falsehoods of such a heresy.

At no time can the leadership of society, or, any individual, group or institution, fight an idea by any other means than a counter-idea. However, if an erroneous idea leads to acts that interfere with the rights of other members in society, then, criminal charges may have to be laid, but we should examine, very carefully, how, and why, it was possible that such an erroneous idea found a possibility of existence in the minds of some individuals. Perhaps, there is a kernel of truth in these apparent falsehoods or erroneous ideas, and, there may be some features which we should acknowledge and keep in mind.

There is another interesting question we should ask ourselves. Can we allow private or unofficial sub-groupings to exist in society? If the grouping is based on the advancement of a special-interest, privilege or power, then, the motivations are likely to be egocentric and elitist in nature, and, we would have to conclude, that such a grouping is illegal, in particular, if it tries to hide its objectives, operations or plans.

A political group that is trying to elect a candidate into Parliament, either as a representative of a Party, or representing a region, would be considered "official", and, its behaviour, view-points or priorities will have to conform to the general ethical guidelines that have been laid-down in the Constitution. All activities of such a grouping should be open; its membership has to be open to anyone interested, and, its candidate, if successful, becomes an elected representative for all the people, and, not just for those, who voted for him or her.

If we mean by "private" a club or group of people, who like to play games, engage in sports or other forms of legitimate entertainment, and, if such a group or club is open to anyone interested, there will be nothing against it, but, any grouping along professional or special-interest lines will have to be carefully monitored.

Certainly, any labour-union or professional organisation that is pressing for special privileges, special representation, or special powers, will be out of date, because the reasons for their existence will have become obsolete. No politician can promise or deliver any special privileges to any one particular group or individual, and, there are adequate mechanisms in society to redress grievances.

There is only one special-interest grouping that would be lawful. If a group of people, or a region, feels, in all sincerity, that a situation of injustice exists, it may group-together in order to be heard, and, to make a special presentation of its case to the Executive Councils or Legislative Assemblies, in order to see, whether or not their perception of the situation of injustice is shared by the members of these Councils or Assemblies, and to make sure, that, if found to be essentially correct, the proper corrective measures are taken.

Religious groupings are allowed, as long as the religious practices do not enforce upon the members a life-style or a degree of coercion that is against the law. One of the cardinal principles of the future societies will be the provision, that, each and every citizen should have access to all the official human rights given as a birth-right, but, that he or she should not have any additional rights or privileges that are not available to everyone else.

Similarly, each and every citizen has the right to be free from coercion, except for the duties and obligations that are placed upon the individual by the State, or, which may have been given to an individual on a voluntary basis, or, as a matter of lawful privilege. Once a duty has been placed upon a citizen, only the State can remove or change this duty or obligation.

The right to be free from coercion will also mean the right to be free from biased exposure, advertising, biased or inaccurate information. It means the right to be free from fraudulent or deceitful proposals, to be free from other contributions and duties. Voluntary donations to a special Cause can be allowed, as long as the Cause is completely open and does not have any anti-social or unethical motivations or consequences, and, as long as its leadership refrains scrupulously from bringing any sort of coercion upon its members. This means, that a religious group should not be allowed to pressure its members into a specific pattern of behaviour, or, to make a financial contibution on the basis of fear or intimidation.

Finally, we should look at the many forms of coercion that become possible, if members of a community have an unequal status in terms of "economic power". The most obvious and, probably, the most important form of economic coercion arises, when a worker becomes dependent upon a regularly recurring pay-cheque in order to survive.

From the beginning of industrialisation, it was obvious, that workers became virtual slaves of their employers, whenever they moved with their families to a city in the hope of finding work. The worker had to incur expenses, and, often, went into debt, because he had to rent accomodation and he was forced to participate in many of the trappings of city-life, such as transportation, food and clothing; all for the sake of finding and keeping employment.

Quickly, the worker became extremely vulnerable to exploitation as his employer could always replace him or her with another willing victim of the hope to find work. Not surprisingly, the workers became desperate as their working and living conditions were appalling, and, their powers to bargain for a decent wage were nil.

They grouped-together, formed unions, and introduced "collective bargaining" techniques, with the threat of a work-stoppage as their ultimate weapon. Slowly, society recognised their right to decent wages and working conditions, and, legislators and social leaderships helped the workers with progressively more favourable labour laws.

However, as always, the pendulum tends to swing too far the other way. Now, unions have the power to demand virtually any wage-level they want, and, increasingly, their strike actions are directed against society and its institutions, rather than against private industries and corporations.

This trend is a perversion of the intention of the labour-unions, and, it completely overlooks the original objectives, as well as the principles that lie behind the universal franchise to vote.

Initially, the labour-union was formed, because collective bargaining and the threat of a collective work-stoppage were the only way to match the power of a private industrialist. However, if a union uses its power against society, it abuses its power and seeks a target on which the members of the union have just as much say as any other member of society.

As a result, a union in conflict with a democratically elected government, is in conflict with the rest of society, and, by virtue of its monopoly and power to paralyse essential functions, union members can obtain an advantage that is not available to other members in society.

We can state, without hesitation, that, in our contemporary societies, most confrontations of unions against democratically elected governments, constitute an abuse of power and lead to situations of injustice.

People can be coerced economically in various ways, and, in our modern times, the most common form is the enticement to spend beyond income and entangle oneself in long-term financial obligations.

The push to extend credit has expanded economic growth artificially, but, the time has come for debts to be repaid. Since governments have participated, wholeheartedly, in this spending spree, they have to "print" themselves out of their debts, because they seem unable to actually pay-off these debts. The practice of printing and bringing more money into circulation than is really justified, is a common practice, and, yet, we see, that government officials and politicians still gaze in amazement at the phenomena of rampant inflation.

Governments can print their way out of debt, at the wrath of the international community and money-markets, but, people within society have no such way-out. They have to pay-up or borrow more, and, the web of entanglement, financial coercion and profiteering is largely responsible for the introvert anxieties of our modern, affluent societies. It is the cause for the inability to take stock of these affluent conditions, and see, clearly, into what direction these developments are heading.

The power of financial obligations is enormous, and, it is the major force that makes people conform, because so many may lose their house, car, possessions, and, even, their families, as the tensions and worries about the consequences of past spending sprees are still exacting their toll, years later.

A significant contribution to the atmosphere of mistrust in our affluent societies is due to financial secrecy, the suspicion of fraud and exploitation, and, the ever-present temptation to grab the opportunity to make a "fast buck". Alienation, hostility and a feeling of hopelessness and despair eat their way through society, while we remain obsessed with the narrow problems of our own poor financial health.

I am convinced, that, future historians will point to this process of constant enticement to overspend and engage in huge borrowings, as one of the major reasons, why the affluent world remained so unresponsive to the glaring injustices of global disparities. The egocentric, introvert pre-occupation with financial problems will be considered as one of the major reasons, why no significant coordinated attempts were made to head-off the collapse that suddenly loomed on the horizon.

However, we are speculating, and, we have not collapsed, as yet, and, perhaps, we never will experience such a dramatic collapse, even, if it seems so inevitable, at times. At least, I feel, sometimes, that the situation can not change significantly, unless we experience a collapse of the financial and economic mechanisms in our affluent societies, but, then, the contours of such a gigantic change in the financial structure of the affluent societies may be so fuzzy, that, we, who are living through it at the time, have a difficult time realising and grasping, what was happening around us, and, what sort of changes were in the making.

We have to do away with the possibility, that one individual, or group, can hold another person or group to ransom as a result of financial obligations, and, this means, that the whole concept of lending and borrowing will have to change. In the future, we will have to regulate, very carefully, how much we can borrow, and, for how long a period of time. This applies, not only, to us individually, but also, to society as a whole, and, we will have to enshrine, in Constitutional Guidelines, the obligation of leaderships to work with a balanced budget.

Gone will be the days, that recklessly promising and freely spending politicians gained access to power and popularity by ransacking the public purse. Gone, will be the days, that an individual would be allowed to spend the next ten or fifteen years of his projected income, but, similarly, the days will be gone, that we are enticed into reckless spending and borrowing because of inflation. Inflation is one of the most serious criminal offenses a leadership can perpetrate against society, and, future societies will surely have eliminated the pernicious practices that lead to a devaluation of the currencies in use.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Penalties for criminal behaviour.
An emphasis on education and rehabilitation.
There will always be a small core of criminals that is refractory to rehabilitation.
The psychopath and his elimination.
The draw-back of a life-long incarceration.
Crime and entertainment; a barometer of attitudes and frustrations.
We really do not care much about crime and its victims, unless it hits close to home.
The difficulties of identifying with unknown victims.
The criminal as a "victim of Justice".
Towards a more sophisticated perception of the gigantic problems of Crime.
A system of "merits" and "de-merits", without evolving into permanent "class-divisions".
Young people, working in the Civil Service.
The need to go in debt for a long time in order to acquire a home.
What happens, when we lose our ethical footing?
A time to remember.
Immortality; to be remembered favourably by future generations.
Perhaps, we need to preserve, at least, a part of the "human jungle"; carefully controled and designed for educational purposes.

In the final pages of this essay, we should say a few words about the processes that have to take place, after an act of criminal behaviour has been convicted. Society must have a way to correct the situation of injustice and protect itself from destructive elements.

Many forms of criminal behaviour will be relatively minor, because it will be a common occurrence that a few people with weak personalities encounter a situation, which tempts them to seek an unfair advantage, or, who over-react to apparent or real wrong-doings, creating another situation of injustice as a result.

As we study the case histories of criminal behaviour carefully, we will come to the conclusion, that other people, or society itself, its guidelines and institutions, or, a particular set of circumstances, contributed to an incidence of injustice that led to criminal behaviour. This criminal act is, often, not a deliberate or pre-meditated attempt to do wrong, but, it comes-about as tensions and stresses break-down a rational approach, and, an individual or small group explodes into a type of behaviour that is obviously against the interests of everyone.

People involved in criminal activities, based on an emotional disturbance rather than a deliberate opportunism, should be relatively easily re-educated and rehabilitated, and, there is no particular reason to keep them locked-up for any length of time.

As a matter of fact, rehabilitation can only be successful within a socially integrated environment, where people are allowed to remain in contact with others under an increased level of supervision. This includes a set of compulsory educational courses, as well as a gradual return to the normal status of full citizenship.

However, there will always be a small core of people, who are, for one reason or another, refractory to rehabilitation and re-education, and, who remain a severe and unacceptable menace to society. If an individual, after prolonged rehabilitation efforts, as well as careful study and observation, has been judged to fall into this category, he or she should be put to death rather than locked-away for life.

We have outlined, on previous occasions, the reasons, why society has to retain the option of the death-penalty, and, why death may be a more humane solution than life-long imprisonment. We have pointed-out the sentimentalities that lie behind our reluctance to face-up to the task of carrying-out a death sentence, while we do not have any hesitation to throw an individual in prison for the rest of his or her life.

We forget such an individual completely, and, we care little about the circumstances he or she has to live in. We give no thought to the abnormality of a life in prison; what it does to the psychological constitution of an individual, or, the fact, that such a hopeless existence in prison is a menace to less severely abnormal prisoners, or, the guards, who have to look after them.

Such a life is worse than death, and, yet, it would be irresponsible to admit an incorrigeable psychopathic personality back into society, after any length of time. Such an individual is not any safer after ten or twenty years in prison than after twenty weeks.

We have also discussed the reasons, why we are reluctant to face the task of carrying-out a death-sentence. In our consumerist societies, we seem to find meaning, only, in the signs of life, growth and consumption, and, we have failed to make an attempt to understand or accept the inevitability of death. In this respect, modern, affluent societies lag far behind many earlier societies, in spite of the fact, that we may consider them to have been technologically or scientifically "primitive". We will have to grow-up psychologically, and, we have to face the problems of inadequate conceptual structures and somewhat primitive social guidelines, whether we want to or not.

Our contemporary societies have failed to understand the reasons behind many forms of criminal behaviour. Perhaps, we are reluctant to contemplate the motivations behind the profusion of criminal behaviour in affluent societies, because it makes us uncomfortably aware of the fact, that we do not live in a consumerist paradise. It makes us aware, how close we all are to falling into criminal behaviour-patterns, whenever we admire aggressive opportunism as a sign of business acumen.

How can we be sure, where to draw the line between what is appropriately aggressive and what is not? If we approve of the clever opportunist, who is able to make a fortune as an ardent free-enterpriser, where do we draw the line with unethical practices, deceit or exploitation? If we secretly admire the daring exploits of bank- or train-robbers, how can we honestly convict them as criminals?

Look at the world of entertainment. A significant portion of entertaining stories comes from the portrayal of some sort of criminal or unethical activity. Sure, the "good guys" win in the end, but, the glory of the good guys is only possible because of a gory crime against the people and society, perpetrated by individuals who almost got away with it. While the crook on the television screen is, eventually, caught and punished, we know, very well, that the crooks in real life are often never caught.

The crux of the problem lies in the fact, that we really do not care much about crime, as long as it does not affect us. We have become so suspicious, so hostile, and, so insensitive to each other, that we really do not care at all about the people around us. Unless we happen to know someone personally, we are totally indifferent to the plight of the victims of crime, and, the victims are far less important, less interesting and much easier forgotten than the criminals.

Look again at the shows on television. The victims fall fast and heavy, but, they flash-by in an instant, without a name, without a face to remember them by. The real drama is, nearly always, the inter-actions between the cops and the criminals, and, no-one really cares one iota about the victims.

Certainly, there are exceptions, and, in every generalisation, we are able to point to exceptions, but, I think, that most readers will agree, that we tend to forget the victims of a crime very quickly, unless the crime happens to be especially horrifying, and the victims are able to tell us about their ordeal.

The convicted criminal, finally caught and thrown into prison, becomes, in a sense, the victim. He becomes a victim of the process of justice. He becomes a victim of society, which has retaliated against the crimes of an individual. No wonder, that the caught criminal is immediately forgotten. He is now completely uninteresting. He was far more fascinating, exciting and powerful, when he was battling the law, and, I am sure, that many people feel a twinge of regret, when their secret criminal hero has finally been caught and put-away.

In the future, we will have a much clearer idea of the consequences of criminal behaviour-patterns, and, we will be much more aware of the harm and injustice caused by all sorts of criminal activities. We will not forget the victims, and, because we will identify and trust each other much more than we do now, we will be emotionally aroused by the suffering of the victims, and, we will not be so fascinated by the perverse cunning and courage of an intelligent personality gone wild.

We will give people who have made a wrong move, a chance to learn the consequences of what they have done, and, we will give them a chance, whenever possible, to right the wrongs they have perpetrated. We will understand their reasons and motivation, and, we will not hesitate to put the blame, also, on all the contributing factors and events we can identify.

We will learn, that we are, often, an unwitting accomplice to crime, either, by thoughtless activities, or by ignorance and neglect. Even society as a whole will learn, that it has frequently overlooked or neglected the injustice suffered by a small group, or a single individual, who may, eventually, be driven to an act of crime in desperation.

In the future, we will not be so hopelessly confused in our thinking and attitudes, that we have a difficult time differentiating between what we admire and what we condemn. We will understand, better, why we first have to learn to live ethically, if we want to reduce the reasons and motivations for criminal behaviour.

A sound, logical, clear-cut set of behavioural guidelines will guide us all, and, because of a total openness in society and the ability to verify and check each other's plans and actions, the incidences, as well as the motivations for criminal behaviour, will have been sharply reduced.

Perhaps, we can introduce a system of merits and de-merits. Certainly, we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of creating class-divisions, once again, and, we will have to be scrupulously honest and highly competent in our methods of judgement. However, a system of merits or honours would not lead to classes of inherited wealth or the vastly different life-styles of affluence and poverty. It would simply be a recognition of the fact, that the efforts, attitudes or hard work of some people have been a great benefit to others, and, these people are, therefore, rightly admired and given credit or merit.

Others, who have violated a code of ethics and have been convicted of criminal behaviour, or condemned for unethical attitudes, are given a chance to remove the blemish of a de-merit and the disgrace of public disapproval. This can be done by an act of hard work and dedication to the benefit of others. Here is one of the greatest opportunities for a criminal or weak personality to boost his or her sense of self-esteem, because, as we have discussed before, criminal behaviour is, often, associated with a feeling of depression, a low level of self-esteem, a sense of chronic failure, as well as an inability to win respect from other people.

Young people working in a globally organised Civil Service or Task-Force, assisting communities and regions all over the world, earn the majority of their merits during this period of Civil Service. After their period of Service, during their years of establishing a family, they will receive help, in turn, from the younger members of the Civil Service, while the old, the sick and those, who become incapacitated for one reason or another, will receive help and assistance, as needed, till the end of their lives.

Gone will be the days, that a young couple had to engage in borrowing money for twenty to thirty years, just to buy a home. During their years in the Civil Service, young people will have earned the right to receive help with the construction of a new home, or the renovation of an existing one. These ideas have been discussed before, and, we will not elaborate them any further.

There will always be a need to remind ouselves, what will happen to us, and our societies, if we lose our ethical footing, and, if we destroy, unthinkingly, the social fabric that gives us our birth-rights of security and opportunity. We know, that the loss of an ethical footing can happen, quite easily, and, on a large scale, and, it is one of the saddest spectacles to watch.

How are we going to keep the memories of past mistakes alive for future generations? How are we going to show them the horrors and disastrous consequences of short-sighted attitudes and practices? We will have to rely, primarily, upon the educational system, and, it is reasonable to expect, that, future generations will be much more aware of the past than we are now.

We hope, that the past history of mankind will come alive in the minds of the living members of future generations, to a degree and extent that has never been possible before. With the help of computers and extensive audio-visual techniques, there is good reason to believe, that the past will live on, and, that it will be carefully studied, time and again, in order to see, how the living generations have to judge what has happened before, and, how the events of the past are going to help them to come to appropriate decisions in their own time.

Let us not forget the criteria for a "realistic immortality". If you want to be remembered favourably by future generations, you will have to be relevant to them, in one way or another. Look at ourselves! What do we know about the past and its people? We only know and admire the people of the past, if they have given us something that is of value to us. Do you remember, or care to remember, an artist whose products you do not like?

Whether your judgement is right or wrong is not important. For you, only those events and those people live in your mind, who meant, or still mean, something to you, in spite of the fact, that you may remember a few people or events, because you had to study them at school. But, these people do not really live for you, do they?

For the highly educated generations of the future, if the vagaries of evolutionary history give them a chance to exist, the past will live more vividly than it lives for us, now, and, this may be, to some extent, a safeguard against a fatal forgetfulness and ignorance. However, we may have to keep alive a segment of this jungle of existence, where people kill each other for the sake of power, greed or lust.

Perhaps, we will have to have such an experimental "jungle of life", where those, who insist that conditions were far better in the past than they are now, can experience for themselves what it is like to live through all the passions and agonies of mortal combat. Perhaps, we need such a jungle, too, in order to shake ourselves out of an insidious complacency, and, it will be horrifying to see, once again, the suffering and misery which people can cause each other.

Horrible, you will say. Perhaps so, but, it is still better to contain such a jungle of human passions in a controled environment, rather than letting it engulf, once again, the entire world. Certainly, all these experiments and ideas can be abused, or, they may have side-effects that have not been foreseen, and, we may then have to change our mind about the usefulness or desirability of such an experiment.

Yet, we know, that we have to keep the past alive, especially, the images and awarenesses that show us life without social guidelines and without a code of global ethics. We have to remind ourselves, again and again, that we have to keep a firm control over these guidelines for individual and collective behaviour, otherwise, we will lapse, once again, into a fatal confusion and forgetfulness, where we do not know, how to distinguish between right and wrong, crime and entertainment, suffering and ignorance.

.......

Summary

1. A discussion about justice, human behaviour-patterns and ethical guidelines.
   Crime is a deliberate act that violates the conditions of justice for the sake of an egocentric advantage.
   Crimes of an aggressive opportunism, or a defensive rage.
   The definition of crime depends on our view of man, as well as the nature of his societies.
   Crime and the mechanisms of social decay.
   The detailed analysis of a terminally ill society.
   The mechanisms of social cohesion.
   Social growth and reproduction, or rejuvenation.
   A social contract of essential equality.
   The sense of justice.
   Grouping-together in a complex social environment; the formation of sub-groupings.
   The fluidity of hierarchical positions.
   It is not easy to define or discuss the wide-ranging realm of crime.
   
   
   
2. A definition of "social health".
   Evolutionary mechanisms.
   A community of biochemical reaction-patterns; the cell.
   Competitive pressures, and a variety of inter-dependencies.
   The sentiments behind "vegetarianism".
   Specialisation, or divergence in function, represents a solution to the pressures of competitive strife.
   Obligatory social existence.
   Man can still exist in varying degrees of isolation and independence.
   Individualisation, made possible by a socially integrated unit.
   The functions of our biological and cultural heritage.
   When unscrupulous attitudes are hailed as "clever business practices".
   
   
   
3. Behavioural flexibility, and the need for a family-unit.
   A review of the evolutionary developments of early man.
   Contradictory trends in the make-up of the human personality.
   An ambivalent "art of deception".
   Why it is difficult for members of a large social grouping to know each other intimately.
   Cultural specifics; seen as "aids" for recognising each other as belonging together.
   Abstracting general principles of conduct.
   Population pressures, at the beginning of "civilisation".
   We only tolerate each other at close quarters, if we have no other choice.
   The rights and wrongs of behaviour.
   Why the judgement of good and evil has to be centered around the interests of a community.
   An evolutionary and relativistic interpretation of reality.
   
   
   
4. What an individual needs in order to be happy or content.
   Why we grant each other "human rights".
   The fragile and labile balance of a condition of essential equality.
   Human rights, and the need to accept obligations and responsibilities.
   A universally accessible system of education.
   Man does not need the lure of assets, or money, to work hard and conscientiously.
   Lawless leadership successions are on the way-out.
   A sense of gratitude for belonging to society.
   A resolute leadership.
   Avoiding a slovenly adherence to the guidelines of the past.
   We all need some stress and a measure of hardship in order to learn.
   We are taxing our ecological niche to the limit.
   Gifts, made-up of rights and beneficial living conditions require a consistent, collective effort to make them possible.
   Taxing fairly, means, not to tax primarily those, who are willing to contribute.
   The level of understanding by future generations.
   Work will be a privilege, because people will consider it a privilege to be a member of the global society.
   Contributions will be in line with the natural life-cycle.
   Future generations will understand themselves much better than we do now; if not, they will not be around for long.
   
   
   
5. It is easier to state, how the members of society should behave, than to understand, why they do not behave accordingly.
   A limited ability to identify with those who suffer.
   Corruption is, in essence, a return to egocentric attitudes.
   The gigantic crimes of negligence and inertia.
   The right, and obligation, to interfere in a situation of injustice.
   It is a crime to allow the existence of corrupt and abusive leaderships.
   Suing for "mal-practice", when a situation of justice has been perverted by an individual, a group, an institution, or a leadership for their own benefit.
   Avoiding hasty and erroneous judgements with the help of complete and balanced information.
   Emotional and non-emotional crimes.
   Tax-avoidance and tax-minimisation.
   The abuse of power and a position of trust.
   The need for complete openness in society.
   Self-discipline, bolstered by the knowledge, that everyone may scrutinise what we are doing.
   
   
   
6. Utopian dreams that are becoming urgent and realistic objectives.
   A social structure always needs re-evaluation and new ideas.
   Slowing-down the process of divergence between the successful and not so successful members of society.
   Why the incidences of failure have to be drastically reduced.
   A review of technical and economic developments in free-enterprise societies.
   Entrapment is the main reason for deteriorating attitudes.
   Fiscal policies and the experiences of the "Great Depression".
   There is no reason, why "inflation" could not be abolished.
   To "work hard", or "fight hard", is no valid claim to ownership.
   The rewards for those, who are clever, successful and amibitious will be the burdens and responsibilities of leadership.
   The benefits of free-enterprise and the objectives of Socialism will fuse in the near future.
   A scrupulously regulated and maintained level of power for individual people, organisations or groupings.
   Learning to live with regulatory mechanisms, and, wondering how we survived without them.
   We all are guilty of unethical activities or attitudes, from time to time.
   
   
   
7. The two-edged sword of "interference".
   Short-comings and their effects.
   Future generations will recognise, that permissiveness and lax attitudes do not represent freedom, nor, a healthy way of life.
   Social institutions and leaderships can also be guilty of crimes.
   No recipe-book of "do's and don'ts"; we will have to understand the principles of just relationships.
   Human behaviour-patterns and educational programs will be far more sophisticated in the future.
   A dwindling distinction between unlawful and unethical behaviour.
   A genuine mistake will never be a crime.
   The importance of "dignity".
   The attitude of "pride".
   The problem of slander and the uttering of deliberate half-truths.
   Criticisms will play an essential role to keep us on our ethical toes.
   We may believe almost anything we want.
   Borderlines with criminal behaviour.
   Looking for a "kernel of truth" in every distasteful opinion.
   Limitations of the right to lobby for privileges or favours.
   The right to lobby for the correction of a perceived injustice.
   The right to be free from coercion.
   The power of the State to place or remove a duty.
   A review of the institution of organised labour.
   The crime of the enticement to overspend.
   Constitutional limitations to the practices of lending and borrowing.
   
   
   
8. Penalties for criminal behaviour.
   An emphasis on education and rehabilitation.
   There will always be a small core of criminals that is refractory to rehabilitation.
   The psychopath and his elimination.
   The draw-back of a life-long incarceration.
   Crime and entertainment; a barometer of attitudes and frustrations.
   We really do not care much about crime and its victims, unless it hits close to home.
   The difficulties of identifying with unknown victims.
   The criminal as a "victim of Justice".
   Towards a more sophisticated perception of the gigantic problems of Crime.
   A system of "merits" and "de-merits", without evolving into permanent "class-divisions".
   Young people, working in the Civil Service.
   The need to go in debt for a long time in order to acquire a home.
   What happens, when we lose our ethical footing?
   A time to remember.
   Immortality; to be remembered favourably by future generations.
   Perhaps, we need to preserve, at least, a part of the "human jungle"; carefully controled and designed for educational purposes.

.......