UN Rights - Altruism [25/1/15]

Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2015 02:17 am
UN Rights - Altruism [25/1/15]
[Outline Rules for Altruist society which will be totally ignored and trashed]
1 The first rule of Altruist society. All people of at least average intelligence must be able, and have the obligation, to understand how their society and economy works. Any procedure that only a minority can claim to understand and therefore manipulate for their own ends should not normally be employed .
2 The Altruist economic system and social system must be protected against Tyranny and Anarchism both internally and externally.
3 Society and the natural environment has priority over economic growth above subsistence level.
We may attach the name God to the reason for existence, but there does not appear to be any practical evidence for a benign Being active in the world.
If there is an amoral Being then Altruists in the world must act on their own.
If there were an 'active' God he would surely provide practical guidance, in order to deal with natural calamity, without being a Hebraic tyrant.
Many people speak of 'finding God' within themselves, which is perfectly acceptable as something not otherwise defined. The folly of religious bigotry is in making an illogical jump from there to philosophical ideas that require logic to justify them, and which may have nothing to do with the subjective feeling. This 'jump' will so very often be dictated by history and cultural background, with disastrous results.
However, it would seem to be very logical to suppose the material aspect of the world, as we interpret it, is founded in at least in a potential for 'being'.
In any case the logic of talking in terms of time, about the beginning of time - 'before' - is exceedingly puzzling. The cosmologist fashion today is for cycles of creation - Buddihist, Hindu? Interesting but maybe of no ethical significance.
There appears to be a common conflation of Intelligence with Consciousness or Self-awareness. A computer with more knowledge and computing ability than any human, will be dangerous, but people of no aptitude at all have the benefit of consciousness or self-awareness making them human. One day it be impossible to know whether a machine has been created that is self-aware, or simply clever at self identification.
Throughout history simple crime has been an irritation to society, but quite manageable. It is only where crime is elevated into an attack on society itself, in what is today called terrorism, or civil war, that an existential problem arises. The Decalogue or Commandments outline these basic laws very well, and add the authority of God.
Beyond that are the Seven Deadly Sins of the Church, wrath [patience], greed [charity], sloth [diligence], pride [humility], lust [chastity], envy [kindness], and gluttony [temperance].
Everything depends on the interpretation
Several of them are passions that need to be controlled in order not to be self destructive.
Pride may blind a person to merits and ideas
Greed as a desire for more than one needs and should have.
Charity can mean the Christian agape rather than mere benevolence.
If sloth is defined as a failure to do things that one should do - evil exists when good men fail to act - then something more than merely being moderate in habits, polite and nice, may be imagined in opposition.
Such values might almost relate to people in isolation, but it is how values relate to people and society in general that is more significant. Utilitarian ethics is one useful method.
Altruism is perhaps a term that should be used rather than agape and certainly rather than the too generalised, love.

UN Rights - Altruism
The minimal laws or morality for any kind of stable Society
Obey those in lawful authority over you
Do not kill without authority
Do not take as your own what is authorised to others
Do not commit perjury

There are various models or graphs illustrating the range of political-social forms of society or state. The common linear model has democracy at centre with communism and fascism on the opposing wings. Hence the recent furore about 'extremism' as if that term is synonymous with violence and democracy with mild apathy in the middle. A more convincing graph has a liberal and state power axis with anarchism at one extreme and fascism and communism at the other. These models all relate to political philosophies that are intrinsically complex, and may all have virtues, and so where does that leave a wealth of values besides freedom and power. Why should democracy have less freedom than anarchism, unless there is confusion, with the freedom of a single anarchist as opposed to the freedom of a whole society. What compares is the freedom as shared by everyone whether anarchist or otherwise.
In the subjoined model three basic values point towards end-values at the three angles. Freedom decreasing as Tyranny is approached, or rather Tyranny decreasing towards Freedom. Duty or Responsibility pointing to Altruism and Tyranny and decreasing towards Anarchism. Egotism pointing towards Anarchism and Tyranny and decreasing towards Altruism. Who or what duty and responsibility is owed to is controlled by the other values, or the lack of them.
Another set of values consonant with those shown would include Equality consonant with Freedom. Not synonymous. Freedom and Equality are implicitly shared out, and may as well signify either Anarchism or Altruism. In fact the Ego dimension has few enough values that are consonant with it and so seldom changes. Or so it appears.
Apart from the basic values the end-values are opposed one to the other two, and have meaning accordingly. If it were worth the effort a median 'end-value' might be named central to the whole - and it would be a hotch potch in ethical-political terms.
There are those who will object to the terms, Altruism , Anarchism, Tyranny, as the three forms of society, opposed to Chaos. And so they should! The terms are merely indicative, and what matters Diagrammatically is that value 'a' stands opposite to its antonym 'A'. And that 'a' and 'b' are values that denote 'C'. Etc. And if Chaos is included we have a tetrahedron. Or can some clever person create a five sided figure?

Altruism Free [from tyranny] Anarchism
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Duty * * * * * * * * Ego
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * *
* *
* Tyranny

Rights and Duties according to type of Society
Bigotry: Altruists cannot base ethics on social-political types, or any other way, without admitting debate on the validity of the idea. But bigotry is consonant with Tyranny, and it will be argued that people are not fit for any other form of society, with debate about this not feasible. The antonyms such as Tolerance are consonant with Anarchism, which needs no self justification. Tolerance is also consonant with Altruism, but if altruism signifies social responsibility then it is quite different to anarchism. Only altruism is open to the debate without which the question would not arise, and that is what defines an altruist.
Altruism: Killing is a moral issue, a necessary evil in police action and war.
Tyranny; Murder remains a political issue, while murder for personal motives is treason
Anarchism: Random murder is outlawed, but the vendetta might be tolerated

UN Rights - Altruism
Anarchist note: As has been said elsewhere, Anarchism is the least pragmatic and most unstable 'idealised' form of society or state. Much as our world of today it depends on self centred individuals cooperating sufficiently to maintain the peace, and to maintain a degree of equality. We are all familiar with our own politicians protesting a belief in equality of opportunity in an economy designed for the rise of plutocrats
[It is predicted by Oxfam 2015, that soon less than 1 percent of the world population will own as much as the other 99 percent put together]
Anarchism is well set for a decline into tyranny.
On the other hand, Tyranny or more subtle Authoritarianism, may create a society that can last a thousand years, but lose the capacity for innovation and change to counter external pressures.
Altruism: Diversity is a value that relates to Altruism. [Occupying a dimension between Altruism and Authoritarianism, rather than the dimension between Anarchism and Altruism which is occupied by such values as liberty, tolerance, and equality etc. All of which values qualify each other in various ways. Liberty and Equality stand together because they relate to the whole of society, and universalised liberty is liberty shared.
Diversity as a value has no prejudices. It relates to other values as they may exhibit themselves, and is modified accordingly. In a Tyranny, which is ego centred, diversity creates class, caste, and any number of variations of graded authority. In Altruist society which is defined in opposition to ego, diversity relates to such values as liberty and equality, and therefore cultural diversity is signified, as might be expected. Cultural diversity includes harmless religious activities.
But the preservation and cultivation of diversity, requires altruism on the global scale as between societies, namely the nations or states that are themselves altruistic. Cultural diversity virtually necessitates the nation state. The more cultural and religious-ethical diversity there is within a country the more unstable it will be, until that diversity melds into a new conformity.
Tolerance relates to altruism, allowing behaviour and beliefs that may be dubious, but may also have virtues, and do not undermine altruism as such.
Altruism could be described in terms of Rights imposed on society, or reversed as Duties of society to individuals. But there may also be various obligations for individuals relating to those rights.

Outright criminality is an elementary ethical problem that any society can normally deal with. The problem for today is ill-defined Utopianism in competing forms, including UN Rights, rather than ameliorating grubby reality.

EC - The European Convention on Human Rights, is much more developed than the basic UN Rights, at the price of complexity. As a result it tends to talk in Utopian and Absolutist terms, in the main articles, only to descend into reality in the qualifying paragraphs.

UN ARTICLE 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin property, birth or other status.
[EC] "Protocol No. 12 ARTICLE 1 General prohibition of discrimination
1. The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
Ethics is all about discrimination, the question is the purpose of that discrimination. Obviously against outright criminality, and contravening rights and obligations of an Altruist society. Obligations that are indeed Universal, but which respect acceptable variations in human society and human beings. We have to discriminate between the legitimate needs of men, women, and children. If we wish to preserve cultural diversity, then there has to be relevant obligations for such matters as race, colour and language. Diversity in religion and philosophy is necessary, for the positive purpose of moral advancement, but within current limits of moral understanding and consensus. There need be no discrimination relevant to particular properties, but how property is owned and employed is a matter for a universal ethic. The economy is most certainly a matter for ethical control, and there must be discrimination between globalism and localism, and those who profit thereby.
The principal feature of Altruism, after all, is not state 'tyranny' but social obligation, or plain morality. If altruism has to be imposed by authority then it is not understood by the populace, or the populace is simply not altruist. But prevailing opinion may enable a social framework to be constructed that encourages altruism.

Discrimination and Culture
[Discrimination means, able to discern differences, although it has been hijacked to mean prejudice]
The Article quoted above on Discrimination is a well intended shopping-list but with no justification provided. Nor does it appear to consider positive discrimination.
Discrimination against and between is the first distinction to be considered. It is absurd to discriminate against men or women - 'man' is not a moral value or statement - but there may be cause to discriminate between each of them and other sexual types, according to their need and contribution to society.
The Article relates mainly to what may broadly be called cultural qualities, and that is not an ethical value or statement, but if society considers culture to be valuable, as most people do, then an ethical statement has been made about culture. Race, colour, language, and culture in general are worthy of preservation, enhancement, and distinction one from another. Some culture may be more sophisticated than others, although not intrinsically superior. As already said diversity flourishes through the nation state, although some countries may be so extensive that distant parts are still quite divorced from each other.

Terms such as White, Black, Semitic, are not ethical values and do not contain or signify any morality. But varieties of moral opinion may happen to be positively related to a particular racial group. Ethnicity, which relates more to cultural inheritance is more to the point, ethically, although pure culture should be ethically neutral. Culture including aesthetics will make reference to physical traits, with colour an ingredient. Therefore culture can be valued, necessitating a belief in cultural diversity. Not, as said, that culture has ethical content, but that diversity is an ethical value.
In generalised and unavoidably incomplete terms:
Anarchism can ignore cultural but favours compatible moral diversity.
Tyranny is concerned with moral and cultural obedience.
Altruism with cultural diversity and moral harmony.
Tyranny alone may employ race as a surrogate ethical value.

Arbitrary Rule
Arbitrary rule is a contradiction in terms for any stable society. Such as society is in chaos and not even subject to the elementary rules or rule of law first mentioned. If a stable society descends into chaos then rules for a stable society will ultimately fail to exist or be usable.

Pragmatism must guide the idealism that determines the nature of government.
Tyranny would have a strong central government extending locally, to maintain the purpose its citizens exist to serve.
Anarchism a minimalist central government, designed to maintain local autonomy in security.
Altruism a central government designed to maintain a moral consensus of mutual benefit.
The purpose of each one of these logically opposed to the others.

Taking Part in Government
"ARTICLE 21 (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedure."
This is a pragmatic representation of how democracy works today. rather than how it might work.
Tyranny at its most developed could make use of modern technology at its most insidious. Not under the direction of any person, but created to instil a philosophy into a system that is self-perpetuating, through a bureaucracy or political elite.
Anarchism would presumably at least attempt to create a [Greek Polis] system with direct self-government by the people. No doubt also aided by modern technology.
If Altruism works from the roots upwards, while avoiding take-over by the computer, a representative system is presently difficult to imagine improvable other than by removal of party machines.

Digital Age - Computer
The computer is excellent for entertainment and gathering factual knowledge. But for social-political purposes it is a mixed blessing. The imposition of this technology on society undermines former privacy, with a greater scope for good and harm.
Tyranny can clearly make excellent use of it for surveillance and forming opinion through managing information.
Anarchism will naturally extol individual ability to discriminate while keeping state surveillance to the minimum. While it can. A populist use of the technology would be the probable outcome in local and national government.
Altruism, pragmatically, will not be able to avoid a measure of state surveillance. But the virtue for society would be in citizens being able to monitor government and take a more active part in it.
Avoiding populism, and rule by opinion poll, a system would be needed in which delegates elected for their expertise can be informed of public concern, with responsibility for assessing this. Together, they might form a local council who then decides on action. Or they might be the equivalent of Members of Parliament at national level.

Test Act - Franchise or Vote
The critical question for Altruist democracy, as opposed to self-destructive democracy, is qualification for the franchise, and public office of all kinds. It is a contradiction for Altruist society to vote for a Fascist or Communist dictator. If most citizens cease to believe in altruism that form of society is dead. Those who support the very elementary principals of Altruist democracy qualify. A modern version of the 1673 Test Act may well be formulated, based on the main and most uncontroversial provisions of UN Rights, or a UK version of the same. Everyone who wishes to enter the country, and everyone who wishes to vote or hold public office, being required to sign acceptance.
Clearly, if this were applied to all societies or states, it would have a salutary effect on government. Their bluff might be called.

"Human Rights are not only for the Virtuous".
Anarchist society has a plethora of rights maintaining individual autonomy. The principal crime therefore is an assault on that autonomy. Criminals would forfeit their autonomy or liberty, and pay restitution.
Tyranny or Authoritarian society based on duties, with reward only for fulfilling them, would see criminals as little better than traitors. Who may be required to prove innocence.
Altruist society based on moral expectations or responsibility and respect. Criminals would be errant citizens in need of redemption. With proportionate treatment and confinement to protect the public. They have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Death Penalty
There is no form of society that must logically have the death penalty for any 'crime'.
A tyranny [modified tyranny] has no essential respect for individuals, and punishment by other means may be far more effective. Some theocracies may have the death penalty as outright revenge for disobedience.
Anarchism has respect for individuals as autonomous beings, and must have minimal law to protect its ethic. Retribution might be by the state or carried out by families and communities.
Altruism must have respect for all human beings as moral agents in society, and where they fail in that removal from open society may be necessary, but not the death penalty - which in any case cannot be reversed if there is injustice. If there is war or similar social disruption, there is no necessary breakdown of civil rule, or of military rule, so that altruist standards may continue.

Punishment - Torture and Slavery
"ARTICLE 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
The EC goes on to define permitted labour for people in detention.
Clearly this is only applicable to Altruist society, and its criminals. Anarchist society would tend to leave justice in the hands of local communities, with minimal state intervention respecting the few basic crimes of murder and indisputable torture etc.
It is of course practically impossible to be definitive about humane treatment for criminals.
UN Rights tends to be about what happens within a society regarding its citizens, but that leaves open what to do where there is existential threats. Even during international war a country may still be internally secure.
In altruist society no offender of civil or personal dignity shall be subject to torture or abuse.
But, if altruist society is subject to an existential threat it may protect itself proportionately - as an inescapable evil.
The conduct of War international and Civil War, are subject to the Geneva Conventions principally. A vast series of protocols that are essential in some form, although they tend to make war appear a civilized activity. Torture and much else is banned, as may be expected.
War is not an activity that relates to Altruism. It takes place where altruism has ceased to exist of never did exist. The situation is such that, at the extreme. it is ethically contradictory and the circle cannot be squared.

Servitude and Slavery
"ARTICLE 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
[EC] "No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour." But it has conditional clauses that allow several forms of servitude, as political expediency for an imperfectable world.
Servitude exists almost everywhere, it is called 'wage slavery'. Outright slavery is to be at constant beck and call and to have no right of reward or status as a moral agent. Such as may exist in a Tyranny of the more self destructive kind.
It follows that both Anarchism and Altruism preserve status as moral agents, and ensure against it.
The simple difference is the purpose of that moral freedom, whether it is for self-indulgence or mutual aid [to use a term much employed in WW2] Mutual aid is a duty or responsibility for altruism, that has to be set against freedom, as in military service that is necessary in a Chaotic world. But in normal employment nobody should be a wage slave, merely put under a obligation to serve society as well as they reasonably can, .

UN Rights: "ARTICLE 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
[EC has essential qualifications - "subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
"Health or Morals" - a wonderful provision that has no intrinsic limits.
Anarchist society would simply provide that individuals or families be not interfered with, providing they do not infringe basic laws applicable to all societies regarding random murder etc. Clearly those 'families' with a religion that believes in mutual benefit would not be anarchists.
Tyranny would have freedom of thought and expression within the limits of the established religion and philosophy.
Altruist society must be positive in respect of mutual benefit, although that is a vague term requiring free discussion and then moral consensus. An example of what altruism would not allow, is for people to be made servile or second class, or lose their status as moral agents. Not permitting a person the 'freedom' to be beguiled into sacrificing his or her equality. That may well have implications in Islam regarding women and the hijab. Even the most responsible society, ruled by consensus, will not be so utopian as not to require some governmental authority.

UN Rights: "ARTICLE 17 (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
The EC has a broad qualification: "The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ......."
Property is not a value or ethical statement in its own right. But the way property is disposed of and used is an ethical issue. Tyranny 'owns' all property in the interest of the 'state'. Anarchism allows everyone to 'own' property and profit from it, but in doing may create conditions for corruption of the ethic into plutocracy.
Altruism would have society owning all property mutually and for mutual benefit. Pragmatically, this would be compromised with governmental oversight.

Property Management and Innovation
As said above the first consideration is the purpose of property and innovation, and in Altruist society that is for mutual benefit, within a social and natural environment that has priority over wealth beyond sufficiency.
A social institution like the health service, in which the work is done for its own virtue rather than financial reward above what is needed, is the model. Research workers in large industries may well be motivated by knowledge and its benefits as much or more than their salaries. Pragmatically, people are not so completely altruist if at all. Therefore innovation particularly requires a monetary incentive. Virtually everything that investors promote should therefore be rewarded in a similar manner to publishing Royalties, and even they should be limited in time, as they are to a degree.

This barely has a mention in Rights legislation, although many people treat it as an immoral imposition. And it is bound up with property. Anarchist society might appeal to these critics, with a minimal state apparatus for security, and a minimal taxation.
The modern world of technology is admirably suited to Tyranny, which we might yet get by default.
For Altruist society a vast education, health and welfare, service is virtually certain, backed by charitable and voluntary service. But if property is owned by society, then it is society as a whole that has to fund services. Probably by 'printing money' - printing money would cause inflation up to whatever the economy could stand, but it would have the advantage of not bearing directly on individuals and their wages. Goods might also be taxed as they are today, as much for social purposes as raising funds.

Standard Of Living
"ARTICLE 25 (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same protection."
For Anarchism equality is more to do with libertine freedom, and not mutual aid. The only proviso being that no family or group may be permitted to gain ascendancy through wealth and property. Everyone 'stands on their own feet' - capitalist free-trade with minimal strings.
Tyranny is not intrinsically concerned with welfare, but as in Germany and elsewhere through to WW2, a good standard of health served the state well.
Altruism is based on mutual aid, and the provisions of this Article are well intended. But it can be held to smack of patronage, and equality means that wealth must be limited. If those who have ability and enterprise are also pure individualists then a pseudo-Altruism can only exist by rule of law imposed by the majority in a representative democracy.

Family and Gender
EC Article 14 quoted.
"ARTICLE 16 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
Anarchist society has equality of moral opinion, providing people do not impose on others. Rather as in the evident UN Rights philosophy. This could only operate at the level of the nuclear family, and whether women are therefore subservient would vary. There would certainly be no concern to prohibit or encourage homosexuality.
Altruist society would reward equal work equally, but take account of specific gender needs, as well as those of children. Same sex liaisons between adults might well be tolerated. Marriage as a social institution would be the traditional family, with children the main concern.
We appear to have lost the distinction between tolerance, and equality.
It would be consonant with Anarchist society for couples, married or not, to have all the children they want. But that is on the obvious basis that there is no responsibility for society to provide for them.
In a Tyranny the probability is of marriage as a function for producing children.
Altruist society has a duty to look after the development and welfare of children, but it must do so as part and parcel of a limited social and natural environment that is to be cherished. In the present world family limitation is unavoidable by moral consensus, or by the force and rule of nature at a later date.

Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Discussion
UN Rights: "ARTICLE 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." The European Convention has qualifications to this.
Rather than free speech a more appropriate term would be Free Discussion or Debate
Absolute freedom has no legal or moral constraints.
Do we mean 'free expression' with or without government legislation to limit the range or subjects.
Do we mean freedom of speech for everyone to say anything they wish only controlled by their own moral or immoral opinion.
Or freedom of the Press to print public views with or without constraint.
Or do we mean freedom for everyone to discuss anything, in order to prepare a moral consensus about what in detail may be said and promoted publicly. That is to outline responsible and constructive speech.
A free press of any kind, may simply be their freedom to say little or nothing of altruistic value, especially if they are under threat from tyrants and terrorists.
Anarchism will no doubt allow ant form of speech other than outright calumny. .
Tyranny limits to whatever suits state policy, not for public benefit, although it will be described as such.
Altruism must begin with free debate, that at all times may criticise anything fairly. And on that basis decide what is beneficial and not salacious or otherwise degrading, and allows legitimate issues to be dealt with. This may mean limiting free speech and pictorial representation where some people are perhaps excessively sensitive, and little of public benefit is obtained by publication. Free debate would still criticise the critics.
And the Press would not exist to promote a particular view, that of the owner and editor, but as organs for public debate unconstrained by the editor other than for occasional security where so advised.
Gratuitous Insults
All words and illustration could be taken as mere descriptions of the world, with no ethical significance, apart from through their usage. Idiot as a degree of intelligence. Nigger as synonymous with Negro. A picture mere anatomy. But in usage the word Idiot has long been used in a deprecatory way, to belittle a person and to place them lower in moral status. This is consonant with Tyranny. A picture of the Prophet may be held insulting to some Islamists, by no means all, but on the basis of the recipients foibles anything may be held as 'insulting' to them. This would be a tyranny of absolute politeness or humility, but intrinsically allied to obedience - rather like Japanese society up to the 19th century. Anarchist society would not be polite so much as merely indifferent to words and forms. Altruist society would seek the constructive purpose in what is said or portrayed.

Trade Economy - Free Trade
Trade and how it is carried out is of fundamental importance, but where is it mentioned. What can we trade in and own or use. Absolute free trade matches the ethic of Anarchism, up to the point of people acquiring goods that enable them to impose on others. Especially weapons.
Tyranny depends on iron rule of its citizens, and trade in goods therefore severely controlled or entirely state managed.
Absolute free trade in Altruist society would be absurd. A restriction on trade in guns, as in Britain today, would be certain. But the main question might be whether goods should only be produced that are strictly needed, so as to minimise the depletion of global resources, and to protect the environment now and for the future. As an extreme example, jewel and gold encrusted luxury limousines would be unimaginable. Those employed in this would be far more urgently required making goods for health and welfare.

"ARTICLE 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to form [join?] and to form trade unions for the protection of his interests."
We also live in a world that expresses belief in 'free trade' and 'capitalism'. Free trade can be consonant with Anarchism, although not with Tyranny. And if it signifies lack of any regulation it is not consonant with Altruism. Capitalism prioritises shareholders interests and profit, which may be consonant with Tyranny. And unless the whole of society shares in this capitalism, as shareholders, it is not consonant with Anarchism or Altruism.
But, the profit motive prioritises efficiency or production and therefore reduction in work force to a minimum. Full employment in society is thereby only possible with ever increasing output, and taking every chance with not being sustainable. Present day government is obsessed with GDP for good [bad] reason. Full employment has almost nothing to do with GDP, and everything to do with sharing work. Feudal England was very well employed albeit poor.

The UN says nothing of these. But they are of several types such a State owned, and Privately owned. There is a vast difference between the two normally, but taken to the ultimate conclusion a Private monopoly may become simply another form of Tyranny that itself assumes a State role. A private monopoly may build up by the mere acquisition of property, or as the result of an initial invention or innovation that makes or takes over a market, and becomes utterly dominant - Microsoft comes to mind.
Tyranny can arrive either way it is the conclusion, with state or plutocratic tyranny that is significant.
Anarchism will abhor such monopolies, and break them down to individual control and use.
Altruism must support innovation and enterprise, while also preventing long term control and creation of monopoly by individuals and groups of 'shareholders'. With Microsoft as an example its creator had to be encouraged and allowed substantial reward, but it has become a vast global organisation that could persist indefinitely. A point at which social control becomes imperative to an Altruist society.

Gambling and Speculation
Human Rights has little or nothing to say about this. But it is of great ethical importance, the one as opposed to the other.
Gambling should include the Lottery, despite it have some virtue in raising money for charity. It would certainly be characteristic of Anarchist society, and might well serve as a suitable entertainment in a Tyranny.
Anarchist society would not be significantly damaged by a gambler winning a substantial sum of money, if this is then expended on libertine luxury. It would only become a problem if property and influence with actual power, accrued, which would be a step towards tyranny.
Altruist society could not entertain gambling above entertainment level. With substantial money involved or won, it would impoverish most people to some extent. An occasional winner might conscientiously give much of it to 'charity' but this would not justify gambling as a whole.
Speculation is much the same, and often worse, where it involves shares in real property, or is on the money market. It may be beneficial in some aspects, where it assists trade, but how much 'futures' would figure is a matter not evident to me.

Education of any substance requires a social perspective, unless it is reduced to a primitive level of the family and household.
UN and European Rights followed a lifetime of war and tyranny, and so they are understandably libertarian and politically expedient. They vary from libertarian to something more positive in almost a random way.
"ARTICLE 26 (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." [EC Protocol religious education allowed]
Authoritarian society, or end-value, might well have a Madrasah style education, such as is devoted purely to religion and literacy. But advanced technology requires much more than that, and the inquiring mind ill suits authoritarianism.
Anarchistic education of any advanced nature, would presumably have schools and colleges set up to reflect random need or ambition and amoral taste.
Altruist society would intrinsically avoid both uniformity and conformity in education. Employing diversity for human benefit, not for personal advantage. In the absence of class based schools, this could presumably only be achieved by localism, and not by placing control in the hands of commerce or other pressure groups, or any form of bigoted religion. UN Rights indicate the purpose for altruist education fairly well.

Freedom of Choice
"Parents have prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
This is not exactly correct. Schools have to conform to the 'rights' laid down, and parents only have the right to choose within those limits. Very often there is no real choice. As above Anarchist standards for education will be minimalist, but parents will not have absolute free play in this or many other areas. The most fraught area of choice is as regards abortion, in which the life and wellbeing of both growing foetus and mother are to be considered. In this limited matter Anarchism may indeed leave it to the parents. Tyranny will do whatever suits its needs. Altruism essentially makes a social decision, on a pro-life basis, and that at least means not allowing abortion if there is no serious risk to a life. If there is a real danger then no decision is likely to be unassailably correct, but is unfortunate for the foetus.

Freedom of Movement
UN Rights: "ARTICLE 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, and to return to his country."
The EC goes on to provide exceptions to the utopian absolutes.
Absolute free movement is an absurdity. At the least there are property and planning restrictions which prevent this, in particular as to where people may build and live. In no form of society whatsoever could there be free movement between countries, for work or anything else.
A tyranny would certainly keep tabs on everyone and provide permission to move as needed for state purposes.
Anarchism might well have very near full freedom of movement, constrained by existing property rights. Even then communities might baulk at the prospect of migration causing overpopulation, and social disruption.
Altruism, assuming it is entirely holistic, would respect the natural world, respect existing communities, and not expect 15 billion people in the world to go randomly on vacation and driving along roads provided to suit this artificial demand, or to settle at will. Large scale migration is a form of negative or positive imperialism, as has taken place in the 'New World' in recent centuries, Palestine-Israel more recently, and even Europe today.

Global Society - International Order
"ARTICLE 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised."
Anarchism globally would be much as internally. As long as peace and security is assured there would be no concern about what other countries are doing. But potential threat from any expansionist Tyranny would need to be countered, making positive international military cooperation unavoidable.
If Tyranny is true to itself it must have global ambitions. Pragmatically it might well maintain peaceful relations with neighbours of superior force.
Altruism, will also wish to see its philosophy established globally, but not as an imposition. In the meantime pragmatism would largely dictate, so as not to seriously endanger what has been achieved. Tolerance of Tyranny is not an option, with trade and cultural alliances favouring genuine 'democracies'. If a particular Tyranny is excessively brutal to its citizens, or a country descends into outright chaos, then Altruist nations would be morally bound to act, without prejudicing their own security. Not acting may itself prejudice security.

Asylum and Political Crimes
It is necessary to define the different types of society.
"ARTICLE 14 (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
As generally defined a political crime is something that prejudices the interests of the state.
In Tyranny all crimes and disturbances are political but easily described as criminal.
In Anarchism there are few crimes of any kind.
In Altruism there are acts of immorality rather than crimes, undermining society rather than the state.
Chaos a country or part of a country in which there is no rule of law.
In reality Asylum is called for by UN Rights for anyone who is denied his Rights where he is living, which does not require any consideration of the 'interests of the state'. United Kingdom regulations for asylum make this abundantly clear. But what is also clear is that states that do not provide the Rights are in default and should be prosecuted. A country in Chaos cannot sensibly be prosecuted. And, for states to be in default they must have signed up to the Rights and have their own constitutions based on the Rights. But those Rights are not necessarily, and almost certainly are not all, Altruist as here defined.
What has to be defined is the status of the World internationally, and by UN standards and by this analysis it is total Anarchism without even the honesty to admit it.
The rules for global anarchism are not those of altruism globally or by state and society.
The first rule of Altruism is to protect itself as such; the second is to take all practical measures to make the world conform; and in conjunction to create havens for those people who are forced into exile.

Nation or Country
"ARTICLE 15 (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."
A Tyranny might well say otherwise, but UN Rights assume a degree of altruism internationally.
What constitutes a nation is not entirely clear, and state might be more to the point. Nationality supposes a cultural identity and if such a nation is also a state it may also have stability.
But the question this raises is whether a state, once formed, or a union of states [EC], must remain fixed or can change.
It would be consonant with Tyranny that any territory taken in hand will not be surrendered.
For Anarchism, an entirely loose constitution would be appropriate, so that communities that cease to be sympathetic can remove themselves or be removed.
Altruism could not declare a federation at any level unchangeable. [Scotland has the option of leaving the UK - The Eurozone cannot make withdrawal illegal] The only condition would presumably be that any breakaway would need to be economically and socially viable, and the residue remain viable. But if there is globalised Altruism any such separation would only be a matter of degree.

A Stable Society
If it is accepted that there are three principal forms of society, state, and world. It follows that, whichever form is employed, some consistency in values is required. UN Rights presumably has that in view, but entirely contradicts itself by the inclusion of states in the UN that do not begin to comply. The first UN Right, is therefore unwritten, one of pragmatic global dialogue on the basis of Rights.
For stability and consistency, a society must have an effective central government, and either be unitary or federal in constitution. The values that govern its economy must be consistent with those applied socially.
[But that does not mean that every ethic consistent with Tyranny, must be adopted for a stable tyranny to exist - it may or may not be 'racist' for instance. A problem will arise if it adopts any real measure of capitalist free-trade internally, but externally it might do so - or would that be a form of mercantile trade.]
It may be argued that the EC is neither well governed centrally, nor is it a federal state, and has no overall form of economy.

A Stable Society
If it is accepted that there are three principal forms of society, state, and world. It follows that, whichever form is employed, some consistency in values is required. UN Rights presumably has that in view, but entirely contradicts itself by the inclusion of states in the UN that do not begin to comply.
The first UN Right, is therefore unwritten, one of pragmatic global dialogue on the basis of Rights.
For stability and consistency, a society must have an effective central government, and either be unitary or federal in constitution. The values that govern its economy must be consistent with those applied socially.
[But that does not mean that every ethic consistent with Tyranny, must be adopted for a stable tyranny to exist - it may or may not be 'racist' for instance. A problem will arise if it adopts any real measure of capitalist free-trade internally, but externally it might do so - or would that be a form of mercantile trade.]
It may be argued that the EC is neither well governed centrally, nor is it a federal state, and has no overall form of economy.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 489 • Replies: 1
No top replies

Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2015 06:51 am
@RW Standing,
Nope. The first rule of Altruist society is not to talk about Altruist Society.

1st RULE: You do not talk about Altruist Society.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about Altruist Society.
3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes limp, or taps out then the Altruist Society is over.

Talking aboutAltruist Society isn't very altruistic.
0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » UN Rights - Altruism [25/1/15]
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 02:40:54