Building a Radically Different Imaginary Society, One Idea at a Time

Do you ever see something about the world that doesn’t feel quite right — something that you would change if you could, but you know you can’t so you try to ignore it and think about something else? This whole “community” and “mythology” bent I’ve been on lately is a way for me to imagine what would happen if we started over, just you and me and a few other like-minded people, in a particular place, with a particular idea. How would our new little world be different?

Changes, even imagined changes, are scary. Since we tend to avoid doing something if it’s scary, let’s just pretend that we never intend to build anything or move anywhere — we’re just playing a game of “what if?” Just playing. That’s not too scary, is it?

Or, maybe it is. Some psychologists believe that our worldview is our mental and emotional “home,” and when a new idea is encountered that threatens our worldview we may react in anger, denial, depression, or any number of other emotions that help us build a wall around our long-held beliefs. What ideas can be safely questioned, and which other ideas are so entrenched that they’re basically untouchable? It’s a fine line…

But let’s give it a try, and see what happens. Some of the following may push a few buttons, so be prepared.

Let’s have a framework for our thinking so we can break this project into manageable chunks:

First, let’s create a list of new precepts. A precept is “a rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct.” Precept is a less scary word that “rule” or “law,” simply because we don’t use it very often. Less scary is good, so let’s us that word for now.

Then let’s build an explanation or rationalization that tells us why our new precepts are better than the ones we live by now.

And then the fun stuff – let’s write a story or parable to illustrate our new precepts in a way that’s more emotionally satisfying than rational explanations ever can be. (I’m a lousy story teller, so I might need a few glasses of wine for that part – or maybe we need someone else to play with us who has some poetic talent).

Here’s the precept I would suggest first:

Precept #1

Before enacting any rule or law, the community will carefully examine the ideas behind that law to see if they’re truly just. To do that, the community will try to determine if any similar law appears in nature. If the rule can’t be justified based on natural law, no action should be taken until every member of the community has been convinced that it is an improvement over nature. This process should be slow and deliberate and approached with considerable trepidation, since it is difficult to see beyond the prejudices of our culture.

Rationalization:

All social animals have rules about right conduct, but human societies also have laws based on ideas that have been handed down through generations. Since the people in charge of creating the rules are almost always those who hold some position of power, and most humans try to protect their own interests once they attain power, many of our most commonly accepted laws are inherently unjust. However, once an idea has been swimming around in a culture for a number of generations, it becomes “obviously” right, even if the law continues to protect one class of people at the expense of others. For this reason, if a law can’t be found to exist among other social animals, it should be considered suspect, and deep deliberation should be required before the law is enacted. And this law should always be open for future review.

The term “natural law” is, of course, already taken, and it means something quite different, so we need to find a new term for this idea. But we can do this later.

To see how we can use this precept, here’s one thing about our current world that bothers me a lot when I forget to ignore it: our prisons. I should probably choose a smaller issue that pushes fewer buttons, but this is the one that came to mind so I’ll go ahead and use it.

According to the statistics from California, one of the nation’s most “liberal” states, almost two-thirds of court admissions to state prison are for property and drug offenses.

If I’m using my calculator correctly, out of the whopping 170,588 Californians in prison in 2007, almost 53,000 were locked up for property crimes like burglary or petty theft, 45,000 were locked up for possession of illegal drugs, and another 7,000 for the sale or manufacture of those drugs. Are the laws that we enforce through these imprisonments just?  What ideas are these laws based on? Are these ideas right, if we judge them using our First Precept?

If we look more closely we can see there are three basic ideas that our society accepts as true:

1. Acquisition of property through legal means is good, while the taking of property currently owned by someone else is bad and should be punished.
2. The society has a right to determine that certain inebriating substances are lawful while others are not.
3. Imprisonment is a just and natural form of punishment.

Let’s take a look at these three ideas, using our First Precept:

Theft: As far as I know, there are no other social animals that enforce the permanent possession of things, although a pack will defend the hunting territory they need for their survival. For most young animals, possession of an item starts a fun game of keep-away — I’ve got this really cool stick, try and take it from me. Now you’ve got that really cool stick, and I’ll try to take it from you.

In nature, there is nothing intrinsically “good” about the possession of stuff, and nothing intrinsically “bad” about swiping stuff from somebody else. This is, I know, causing all sorts of brain storms as you read it, but please keep reading anyway. We’re just playing with ideas, remember?

If we accept the First Precept, then we would see that our attitudes about possession are most natural when we play the kind of game where there’s no moral judgement against the guy who steals the ball. Possession and theft were originally two opposing roles of a game. Nothing more than a game.

The idea that “possession is 9/10ths of the law” first originated, then, with people who owned property and the power that came from owning property (which was often military power, at least during the feudal times when many of our common laws were first written). The game of keep-away has somehow become one of the basic underlying values of our culture, with all odds stacked in favor of those who currently have possession of the ball.

If we take away the culturally-imposed moral aspect of the situation, we see that  current laws tend to protect the interests of one class of people and not others, because once a person has accumulated a great deal of property and the power that goes with it, illegal accumulation of more property rarely causes a conflict with the authorities. People are most often imprisoned for the “bad” theft that happens when one with very little tries to take something from someone who has more. Doing it the other way around is common, and rarely punished. (The recent banking scandals come to mind…)

How could a small new society allow for the natural inclination to acquire stuff, while keeping the act of possession where it belongs – as part of a game, rather than the primary focus of life? The Potlatch societies give us one example of how a group of people can look at possession in a more natural way. We could surely think of other systems that would work as well, if we put our minds to it. Or, we could just swipe the Potlatch idea…

Drugs: As far as I know, there are no animals that enforce rules against using intoxicating substances, and the use of intoxicants is commonly seen in nature — among species as different as wasps and moose. Therefore, the use of mind-altering substances is natural, and anti-drug laws are not. Furthermore, we know the consequences of anti-drug laws are enormously destructive.  The repeal of the drug laws would instantly empty many cells of our prisons, and put a stop to the disastrously violent wars between governments and drug cartels in drug-producing countries.

If we use the First Precept, we would find it very difficult to approve of any rule in our new society that punishes people for the use of mind-altering substances.

The drug problem in the greater society is far too big for a few people to change, and the ones who profit from the current situation are far too powerful. However, when we design our new society we have an opportunity to make it right. At least in our imaginations, of course…

Prison: When a member of a pack or social group breaks one of the natural laws of that species, the other members quickly correct the misbehaving animal. The young animals are gently but firmly guided towards right behavior when correction is needed. If an animal continues to act in a way that is contrary to their natural laws, the corrections will get progressively more firm and may eventually lead either to banishment or death, in order to remove the offending animal from the gene pool.

I am not aware of any natural system that includes imprisonment as a punishment. I also don’t know of any natural system that drags out a punishment over time. Therefore, according to the First Precept, imprisonment is not natural, and all efforts should be made to find another system for correcting anti-social behavior in a way that’s swift and just, and where the punishment is appropriate to the crime.

Finding another way to protect our new society from anti-social behavior will require a great deal of creativity and ingenuity, but it can be done. Prisons, especially as they are currently used, are a fairly new invention.

Of course, this also means that our animal partners should also not be subjected to a life in prison. Factory farms defy natural law. Using the First Precept, they cannot be justified.

What’s next?

There are no stories to illustrate the First Precept yet. Please feel free to write one. Also, let us know if you think the First Precept is a just and valid idea, and if it would lead to a better society. Which precept should be written next? Just out of curiosity, did any of the ideas on this page seem so contradictory to your own worldview that it made you feel angry? After thinking about it, did it still feel wrong? If so, why?

Join us in creating a new worldview for our imaginary new society. One that’s more just, more sustainable, and more fun to live in. But let’s not take it too seriously — we’re just playing, remember?