The Problem: Crisis of Humanity
It is a fact of nature that in this world there is, and always will be, conflict, suffering and inequality. It is a constant of the reality in which we live for a variety of reasons. Physical limitations as well as mental. These views are not so much pessimistic as they are realistic. Throughout history humanity has answered this seemly unanswerable problem in many ways. The first I’ll mention is the cynical response. This is actually where the pessimism comes in. It is nihilism. It is the belief that all the worlds suffering does not amount to anything that makes it bearable to undertake, and so they become resentful of the world there after. But, there are others who in the past tried to resist the crushing weight that meaninglessness has to offer, they looked for a solution not an excuse. Societies established themselves and from there they established governments. Humanity left the state of nature which consists of meaningless suffering and molded it into society to make the burden of life a little less burdensome. They question then became, how ought we rule ourselves in manner that maintains an acceptable level of freedom (chaos) while also providing security (order) to counter balance that freedom? And that is the question I will be attempting to answer. There have been many suggestions in past to remedy this problem. Some have led to fairly balanced societies while others started piling up the corpses in their crude attempts to force order.
The Solution: Freedom and Security
My solution runs in parallel with the suggestions that came out of the European enlightenment period. Many of there ideas formed the basis of modern western society. Is modern western society perfect? Obviously not. Is it pretty close? I would argue that we are getting pretty close, but the goal is to understand that we will never reach perfection. The goal has never been to reach perfection because it has been to get as close to the perfect society as possibly. You create a perfect system out of imperfect parts (people). The reason for this lies in something that the enlightenment figures figured out. You can’t eliminate conflict, suffering or inequality, you can only mediate it. Its like in calculus when you have a function approaching an asymptote, but it can never touch it. In response the enlightenment thinkers suggested a society and government that promoted specific values and allowed for the most amount of participation. This was their attempt to balance order and chaos, freedom and security. The best way we know of achieving this aim is by means of a democratic system with enough bureaucracy that power is distributed enough that if a single actor becomes corrupt it doesn’t bring the whole system down, but also not spread out too much that nothing can get down. The specific numbers are irrelevant as they are situational. The government should enable and protect the rights of the people, no one else’s rights shall supersede another’s. To resolve inequality the government must promote equal opportunity. There shall a free and open market economy.
Now, this society should not be mistaken with a meritocracy. A meritocracy is the most libertarian society, borderline anarchy. It’s a society that accepts that the competent shall dominate the incompetent and they have the right to because of their competence and ability. This would be a horribly unequal society. To explain how my society is different let me give an example. In a meritocracy if your poor the government’s proposed solution would be to tell you to work harder. That doesn’t help anyone. In my society the resources needed for success would be offered to the people (free public education) and if one chooses to utilize these resources good for them, if they don’t however, there is nothing the government can do if you are unwilling to make the attempt. In my society that responsibility falls in the hands of the individual.
As well as being opposed to radical conservatism my society is also opposed to radical liberalism. A state cannot provide every service for free to the public. The state it has its physical limitations, and it has its lines it should never cross lest it sacrifice the rights of the people for the security of the nation. The most basic unit of society is the individual not the collective. When governments treat societies as collective rather than separate individuals we a tyranny of the majority over minorities. And when we separate people I this way we divulge into tribalism. Its us vs them mentally is self-destructive. No one wins that game, in the long run at least. You have an immediate winner, but they will have won out of brutality not out of reason.
Rhythm of Life
In my society it is not for me or the government to dictate the daily life of the individual. The system is specifically designed to allow for a free society. There cannot be an ideal day either because by virtue of being free I cannot say what someone else’s ideal is, that is for them to determine. So, instead I will tell what a “productive” day would look like.
Wake up, have breakfast
Go to work
Break for lunch
Go home, have dinner
And the rest of the day is personal leisure time
Sleep, and then repeat
Basically, in my society you ought to spend your time working with sufficient breaks along the way, while also having leisure time for self.