Minimalist Society

[RWStanding]

Minimalist Society
This has nothing to do with anthropology and political history.
A good starting point is the Ten Commandments, if the decalogue is taken purely as it stands in Exodus, and expressed in its essentials. That it has an image of ‘god’ as something above and outside humanity provides a basis for future criticism of those in authority. However, in essence the term is used as an expression of authority as the basis for the commandments including parental authority. The substantial ethical commandments follow. Not to kill tends now to be stated as not to commit murder. It signifies that life should not be taken other than as provided by the law, not pacifism. The commandment on adultery protects the family as a unit of authority. Not to take anything from another person, also means, other than as provided by law. Not to bear false witness is a necessary rule for effective courts of law. There is nothing in this that could not as well apply to a modern surveillance state, such as China is reputed to be. In those terms Christianity and other modern religions are far from minimalist, and cannot be expressed other than in terms of ethical values, relating one person or community to another in such a globalised society as happens to exist.
All forms of society must have at least a minimalist ethic as expressed, but built-on and modified by more genuine ethical values as they relate or oppose each other. Intrinsically this creates triangulated sets of values rather than the ludicrous linear model of politics, which cannot be reconciled with a linear model of ethics. Such as Freedom – Autonomy – Responsibility, and opposites, as values for and between individual people and individual communities.
Where Authority continues as the prime value, it is the messenger that people believe in rather than message. If the message is of egalitarian wellbeing for everyone in society, it still depends on the will of authority. In such a society, heretics might be burnt with total conviction. And ‘wellbeing’ would still be a matter of Law rather than ethical logic. If wellbeing is not the law then society might well signify nothing but the servile state with everything handed down or down, or not, in a feudal manner. Or society in the hands of a capitalist Mafia, made to appear socially responsible.
The society we live in today is obviously confused in its ethical values. It expresses belief in personal freedom and consonant equality, but employs a monetary economic system that permits an accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals and corporations tending towards the Mafia state where it is not extremely well regulated with wealth localised and spread also amongst individuals.
An egalitarian society or state based on individuals, with society as merely an aggregate of individuals, would necessarily spread wealth evenly and impractically. Self interest is not a basis for practical running of society long-term. People will vote or buy on the open market whatever meets their desire, and live in the world as a unitary open-society. Diversity that may have been vaunted by the individual will cease to have any communal focus, or cultural diversity. Such a society is a compromise between ego and egalitarian.
On the other, or third-hand, altruist democracy is a compromise between egalitarian freedom and social responsibility or duty. Although an almost impossible political institution, society and community is its expression. The unitary globalisation of both tyranny and anarchism is resisted, with society existing from the grass-roots upwards. Essentially people would not vote and buy for their own narrow short-term interest, but for long-term corporate benefit. Every community so far as possible in balance with its environment, and nature, and limited in population. Globalised travel and migration in an overpopulated world is demented.
The modern age is obsessed with ownership in property based on a monetary economy. There is no way ‘ownership’ can be defined other than in relation to social values. Either it signifies individuals autonomously, the sovereign power, or corporate society.

[Sculptor]

Minimalist Society
This has nothing to do with anthropology and political history.

Yes it does! LOL

A good starting point is the Ten Commandments, if the decalogue is taken purely as it stands in Exodus, and expressed in its essentials. That it has an image of ‘god’ as something above and outside humanity provides a basis for future criticism of those in authority. However, in essence the term is used as an expression of authority as the basis for the commandments including parental authority. The substantial ethical commandments follow. Not to kill tends now to be stated as not to commit murder. It signifies that life should not be taken other than as provided by the law, not pacifism. The commandment on adultery protects the family as a unit of authority. Not to take anything from another person, also means, other than as provided by law. Not to bear false witness is a necessary rule for effective courts of law. There is nothing in this that could not as well apply to a modern surveillance state, such as China is reputed to be. In those terms Christianity and other modern religions are far from minimalist, and cannot be expressed other than in terms of ethical values, relating one person or community to another in such a globalised society as happens to exist.
All forms of society must have at least a minimalist ethic as expressed, but built-on and modified by more genuine ethical values as they relate or oppose each other. Intrinsically this creates triangulated sets of values rather than the ludicrous linear model of politics, which cannot be reconciled with a linear model of ethics. Such as Freedom – Autonomy – Responsibility, and opposites, as values for and between individual people and individual communities.
Where Authority continues as the prime value, it is the messenger that people believe in rather than message. If the message is of egalitarian wellbeing for everyone in society, it still depends on the will of authority. In such a society, heretics might be burnt with total conviction. And ‘wellbeing’ would still be a matter of Law rather than ethical logic. If wellbeing is not the law then society might well signify nothing but the servile state with everything handed down or down, or not, in a feudal manner. Or society in the hands of a capitalist Mafia, made to appear socially responsible.
The society we live in today is obviously confused in its ethical values. It expresses belief in personal freedom and consonant equality, but employs a monetary economic system that permits an accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals and corporations tending towards the Mafia state where it is not extremely well regulated with wealth localised and spread also amongst individuals.
An egalitarian society or state based on individuals, with society as merely an aggregate of individuals, would necessarily spread wealth evenly and impractically. Self interest is not a basis for practical running of society long-term. People will vote or buy on the open market whatever meets their desire, and live in the world as a unitary open-society. Diversity that may have been vaunted by the individual will cease to have any communal focus, or cultural diversity. Such a society is a compromise between ego and egalitarian.
On the other, or third-hand, altruist democracy is a compromise between egalitarian freedom and social responsibility or duty. Although an almost impossible political institution, society and community is its expression. The unitary globalisation of both tyranny and anarchism is resisted, with society existing from the grass-roots upwards. Essentially people would not vote and buy for their own narrow short-term interest, but for long-term corporate benefit. Every community so far as possible in balance with its environment, and nature, and limited in population. Globalised travel and migration in an overpopulated world is demented.
The modern age is obsessed with ownership in property based on a monetary economy. There is no way ‘ownership’ can be defined other than in relation to social values. Either it signifies individuals autonomously, the sovereign power, or corporate society.

[Sculptor]

If any society starting out were to only have TEN rules to make what rules would you chose?

It seems to me that these TEN are possibly the worst you could think of.

The first FIVE are completely wasted on some space pixie.

What about protecting women and children from abuse?
What about personal freedom and respecting the opinions of others?

"Kill" what? Does that mean murder, or does it include animals?

[henry quirk]

"If any society starting out were to only have TEN rules to make what rules would you chose?"

1: The Individual owns himself.

2: The Individual has an inviolate right to his life, his liberty, and his property.

3: The Individual's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, if he willingly, knowingly, and without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of his life, liberty, or property.

You only need three.

[Lacewing]

"If any society starting out were to only have TEN rules to make, what rules would you choose?"

Oh boy! Please add these to the list for the new society:

1) Respect all life.

2) Be responsible and accountable for yourself and what you contribute to greater society.

3) Any religious beliefs are for personal use only, and must not permeate society nor be held over or used against others in any way.

[commonsense]

If any society starting out were to only have TEN rules to make what rules would you chose?

It seems to me that these TEN are possibly the worst you could think of.

The first FIVE are completely wasted on some space pixie.

I wonder, is ten a random number or was there some reason for selecting it?

Also, what do you mean when you say that the first five are wasted, and why do you say ‘space pixie’?

[Sculptor]

If any society starting out were to only have TEN rules to make what rules would you chose?

It seems to me that these TEN are possibly the worst you could think of.

The first FIVE are completely wasted on some space pixie.

I wonder, is ten a random number or was there some reason for selecting it?

Also, what do you mean when you say that the first five are wasted, and why do you say ‘space pixie’?

Actually there is no actual "TEN" commandments in the bible. The list was cobbled together post hoc.

"Space Pixie", "Invisible Friend" - say it how you will.

[commonsense]

In the spirit of space pixie-ship, please let me offer a rule that can be applicable to all situations. I believe this is the Hebrew version of the so-called Golden Rule:

Do not do to others anything that is anathema to you.