3.1.1   Basic Policies of Humanism

Direct Democracy  

Let the basic economic and political community be a commune. Let the commune include the territory of the smallest society able to exist relatively autonomously, or of the biggest society that offers a satisfactory insight into joint activities. It may be assumed that a commune has from 100,000 up to 1,000,000 inhabitants, but it may also relate to a small community with several people associated on a regional basis up to, theoretically, associated people of the entire world.   

The commune is a part of a region, monarchy, republic, or federation of associated republics and is, therefore, bound to respect the existing laws and the Constitution. The commune has the right to autonomy, to the extent permissible by federal regulations. It is necessary to suppose here the favourable orientation of the society. This means that the state will allow autonomy of the commune to the extent that will enable optimal development of the society. The commune organizes itself its internal order. The commune has an administration consisting of an assembly, a legislative and an executive body.   

Today, Assembly is the highest legislative body and is composed of representatives of people. In the new system, the highest organ of legislative power will be the people themselves. In the introduction, I presented that not one form of representative democracy, whether it is delegative or pluralistic, sufficiently represents the will of people. All representative systems are prone to corruption of authority, and there is no convincing indication that there may be some significant change in the future. The only accurate way to follow the will of the people is that it is determined directly by the people through a referendum. We live in such a time when the will of the people can be simply and easily identified with the help of computer technology and the Internet. 

The assembly of the commune will still remain. It will continue to consist of representatives of political parties or delegates elected by society. However, the Assembly will no longer make decisions on behalf of society. It will identify issues and prepare and conduct the referenda on which the people will decide directly. The assembly will be required to set the referendum questions through the consensus of political parties or delegates to protect the will of the minorities. In this way, the highest authority would not be the assembly anymore, but the whole society, which will undoubtedly present a higher form of democracy. 

All important decisions in society should be made through a referendum of the inhabitants of the commune. Each person has so far been entitled to one vote. A new system may accept such rights, but there might be a better solution. I think that the weight of each vote should be based on the contribution each person makes to the development of society. That basically means that people who have contributed more to the development of civilization would pose a higher voting power. Or in other words, I suggest unequal voting power based on the contribution of individuals to developing the society. In this way, the voting right would stimulate the development of society.  

All democratic systems today are proclaiming democratic equality among peoples. The practice shows that those under the age of 18 have no democratic rights, while those older have democratic right only formally as they decide on nothing in practice. In practice, the authoritarian rule society independently.   

Formal equality of democratic rights would need to be supplemented by a system, formed by the factual democratic right of individuals based on the value of past labour of each individual, including their predecessors. In other words, let each individual have decision-making right in society proportionate to their own contribution, together with their predecessors', to the creation of all values the nation possesses. The criteria for establishing the decision-making power in society would include all forms of values the current society accepts, such as ownership of real estate, companies, shares, money, but also the education, work and its performance, scientific, cultural, sports and other achievements of individuals.    

Let us present the value of past labour, meaning the voting power of individuals, by a numeric value called the voting past labour points. All values that can be expressed in money can be easily shown in past labour points. Private owners of material goods get in full the quantity of past labour points, or voting power, equal to the value of their property. A person having more valuable past labour will get more past labour points and will exercise a greater voting right, and vice versa. As a general rule, ownership of real estates of higher values was realized by a more considerable inconvenient past labour.  Such labour contributed more to the development of society and therefore justly receives a larger quantity of past labour points and a more significant voting power in the society. Needless to say, a part of the capital value frequently occurred as a product of exploitation of the society members. However, such a state of affairs is in most social systems legalized and needs, therefore, to be accepted as such.   

The people without any private ownership will exercise the voting right to the extent to which they contributed to the creation of the values in collective ownership of the commune's population. Each commune possesses real values owned by the society, such as enterprises, land, facilities, communication roads, infrastructure, natural resources, labour force, etc. It will be necessary to evaluate the total value of the collective ownership of the population in the commune and establish its counter-value in voting past labour points.   

The total value of the collective material wealth expressed in past labour points will then have to be distributed to the social commune members according to a jointly agreed upon and accepted the principle. The criteria for establishing the power of each voter will need to be set through a comprehensive study that will valorize all possible types of contribution to the building of present-day society. Such criteria will have to be set by an expert commission and approved by the assembly delegates by consensus. It is most likely that it will not be easy to establish such an agreement; however, it could succeed after research and improvements that are optimally acceptable to everyone. In the end, the society will, in the referendum, decide by significant majority whether it would accept or not the rules for such distribution. The solution to be obtained, no matter how it might seem inconvenient to an individual or a group, will represent a big step forward to each individual and, naturally, to society as a whole.   

Let the voting power arising from collective ownership be distributed linearly to the commune members in the following manner: let a certain quantity of the voting past labour points be exercised by birth. The work, the individual, performs by creating themselves brings the maximum perfection that the individual can accomplish, carries the highest value the individual can create for themselves and for another individual. The increase in voting power expressed by a certain quantity of voting past labour points will further have to be lineally achieved by years of work, education and all other agreed upon criteria that permanently improve the individual, the society and nature. Distribution of past labour points can be designed in such a manner to have a stimulating effect on the realization of social needs.   

In case of a fall in birth rate, parents with several children may be allocated a larger quantity of past labour points, and such a measure would stimulate the rise of the birth rate. Conversely, in the case of an excessive birth rate, parents could be sanctioned by losing a certain number of past labour points. 

The increase of the number of past labour points among the population of a commune needs to be based on individuals' activities that promote the individual and the society on a lasting basis. This measure in the first place relates to production where any work improving the productivity would be rewarded. A certain quantity of past labour points may also be allocated to independent creators as a token of recognition for great scientific, cultural, sport or other achievements. This would stimulate the non-profit work as a contribution to the development of society. The allocation of this type of values would be carried out by evaluation courts and arbitration commissions, by the valorization of the creative accomplishments and benefits the society enjoys from them. On the other hand, individuals who commit inconveniences to society will be punished by losing an appropriate quantity of past labour points by the same courts. That will be an additional measure for the enforcement of the productive orientation of society.  

The unequal voting right is presently a factual state because the rich mostly decide independently in the name of the society. It is of course entirely unacceptable for the people. An actual “one vote per person” is satisfactory for society but today's rulers can hardly accept it because then they would lose the power they possess. They would rather start World War than accept it. However, a compromise approached through lengthy negotiation may create an unequal voting power acceptable to all. Such voting power may find its justification because it will stimulate the development of society. The people who contributed more in creating society’s wealth will have a proportionately stronger power of decision-making. For example, an individual with a ten times larger quantity of past labour points will have a ten times stronger voting power. However, it should be said that the differences between voting powers among the people will be pretty much formal because nobody will be able to interfere significantly in the democratic process regardless of their voting power when millions of people are making decisions.  

However, the system will for the first time let all people participate directly in making decisions of joint interest. They will finally have real decision-making power. Together with other citizens, they will oppose more efficiently the will of the present-day rich.   

By use of past labour points, the system will objectively present the power of each individual, which may be interpreted as an acceptable form of recognition for the individuals in the society. On the other hand, people who would not be willing to compare their voting power with other people or be compared with other people will have the choice to keep their quantity of voting points that present their voting power secret.  

Moreover, the system will permanently ensure the voting power of individuals and may, therefore, be acceptable for the rich who, as traditionally privileged members of society, will be the main obstacle to the development of the new system. When the rich voluntarily accept the new distribution of decision-making power, as some royalties accepted when parliamentary democracy occurred, the road to further development of mankind will then be opened.    

The development of computer technology provided the technical possibility of carrying out multiple referenda rapidly and efficiently. Polls are possible using internet applications that would contain the issues relating to collective action through different points. Each point would set specific rules for collective action. The referendum system needs to be designed in such a manner that a small number of decisions would have influence into the broadest and deepest problems of social behaviour. The base of the referendum needs further to be the acceptance test of a particular choice by the majority of inhabitants. However, if in the decision-making system nuances or gradations appear, then the system will have to be formed in a manner to allow that the decision has its scale of values. Each citizen would in such a range elect the magnitude that suits them best, while the sum of statements of the commune members would in the function of their voting powers form a strategy of collective actions. Vote processing can be presented by the formula that shows the middle voting value per vote:

 Vote Result =    

Example: Let us assume arbitrarily that average gross quantity of past labour income-based points is 100,000 points. Let a voter who has for example 50,000 point take on a prepared scale a voting value 10 (ten) and a voter who has 150,000 points take a voting value 20 (twenty). Then the calculation (10x50,000+20x150,000)/(50,000+150,000) will give the result 17.5. The result is proportionally closer to the voter with stronger voting power. The result may present any unit of measure the voting is about (e.g. $, %, Kg, etc.).  

Each individual needs to have, irrespective of age, decision-making power in society. Theoretically, this measure will open up the possibility for five-year-olds to vote if they know how to do themselves, or their parents or guardians will vote for them.   

The proposed system, for the first time in the history of mankind, enables all commune members to participate in decision-making regarding all strategic objectives of the commune. The participation of all inhabitants in the decision about collective activity represents the most developed form of democracy. Such decision-making does not automatically mean that the dictions taken will be the best for society. They only provide the best approach to decision-making, while the people will by their own practice find the way that suits them best.   

Justice 

The individual needs to be free but also they need to be accountable to society for their actions. Each society has a full legislative system that helps it protect itself against the inconvenient activity of the free individual. Legislative bodies act following laws and regulations.   

The legislative body of the commune will on the grounds of the adopted laws define the degree of the inconvenient activity or, more precisely, the damage that an individual inflicts to the society, and would sanction such action by taking away a certain quantity of past labour points. Past labour points would impact income distribution, which will in a later stage be discussed in greater detail. In this way, policies based on past labour points will be highly respected.   

Bearing responsibility using voting past labour points is more acceptable than the inhumane sentence of imprisonment, as the individual keeps their freedom and productive power in society. Each crime will be judged by existing laws and recalculated into past labour points. If a person commits a high crime, they may lose all their past labour points and even hit negative values. The proposed system can make a negative value of past labour points much more painful than prison. For example, these people will wear special clothing that will tell everyone that they broke into negative values of past labour points. That might bring them more inconveniences than prisons. Prisons would no longer be needed. If a person has a negative value of productive power, he will try hard to escape it, and it would be possible only through highly productive labour and outstanding behaviour over an excessive period. One may assume that such a form of sanction will be more efficient as each individual will be highly interested in keeping and preserving their voting past labour points. The individual will avoid criminal acts and infractions, which is for the present-day systems almost unachievable since a part of the society lives in the margins so that it has nothing to lose.   

Judicial bodies may, in the same way, assume the function of rewarding each individual who generates significant conveniences to the society, stimulating thereby the development of conveniences. However, the judicial bodies have a significant deficiency in terms that their way of establishing justice in society is authoritative, meaning that it is to some extent alienated from society. Also, judicial bodies and arbitration commissions cannot judge all disputes in the community because of their potentially unlimited number.   

Democratic Anarchy   

Democracy as a form of rule is not enough per se for establishing a sound social orientation because the majority may be wrong. Besides, the principle according to which the majority overrules the needs of the minority is not satisfactory. In an extreme case, the majority may democratically take away the freedom, human and civil rights of the minority. If we exclude the principle of consensus that is, unfortunately, rare in present-day society although it may to some extent mitigate that deficiency, democracy has not found to date how to overcome the problem.  

In all democratic systems, there has always been a significant problem of protecting weak individuals from influential people in everyday life. In today’s alienated society, an individual can generate a considerable number of inconveniences to others without being accountable to anybody for them. In this way, inconvenient tensions are created in society. This phenomenon is almost legalized, as one can see in everyday life. In the "developed" west, an individual seeks a job by trying to sell themselves. At work, a great subordination to the employer is expected as otherwise, the worker may lose their jobs. As a consumer, the individual is exposed to aggressive propaganda. In day-to-day life, the individual has almost no protection against offences, tricks or any other form of behaviour that bothers them.  

Efficient protection of an individual against inconveniences causing by another individual or a group of people can be established by the direct and equal ability of assessment among people. May each individual be allocated the equal power to evaluate with positive grades others who have brought them conveniences and with negative grades all those who brought them inconveniences. May such grades automatically exert a small, however, satisfactory impact on rewards and punishments of individuals in the society?   

By introducing a socially acceptable regulation, negative grades may form sanctions to those who committed inconveniences in society. They would automatically manifest in a small, but still noticeable removal of the quantity of voting past labour points of individuals, which would diminish to the same extent and on a lasting basis the individual's power in society. It will later be explained in greater detail how the loss of voting past labour points directly influences the level of income.   

And conversely, persons, or an association, that create conveniences to the society in a larger volume would be given positive grades from several members of the community. Positive evaluations would bring major conveniences to the doer.  The conveniences would manifest in a small but still noticeable increase in the number of past labour points, which would to the same extent and permanently increase the individual's power in the society, and income.   

Each individual may by their activity bring conveniences and inconveniences to the society and, therefore, each individual will get both positive and negative grades, which the community will need to accept. However, the persons that create a more significant number of inconveniences to the society would get negative grades from more people and on a longer-term basis, which would force them to change their behaviour.   

The evaluation system is already in place in the societies where public opinion is sought about the success of some actions. However, such an assessment does not have direct power. The society would need to have a lot of courage to adopt such a measure, but then it will realize huge benefits.   

Technically, the evaluation could be carried out by inscriptions on the internet application, which would be automatically processed in the commune's administrative centre. It would be necessary to establish here full equality as a base of equality of human rights. In the proposed system all inhabitants would have an equally limited number of evaluation possibilities. This means that each individual will concentrate their evaluation on the people bringing them the most conveniences and inconveniences.  

In such a society not a single individual will be privileged. Nobody will be able to make use of the freedom of expression and of acting if such freedom brings inconveniences to another individual. Not a single person will be able to generate any sort of inconvenience to anybody in society without punishment. The system will systematically eliminate all inconvenient states in the society, and thus the system will no longer inhibit itself in its own alienation.   

It is indeed worth raising the question as to how much each individual is able to objectively evaluate the causes of the conveniences and inconveniences and, accordingly, how much they are able to assess the activities of another individual accurately? In any society, the subjective evaluation of the causes of inconveniences is more than possible so that individuals could by their assessments misjudge other people. In direct relations among people, each individual needs to make decisions in the way they experience them. And the society is bound to respect the sensitive and emotional state of each individual, irrespective of the level of development of knowledge or consciousness of such individual. The orientation that respects any individual in society is the best possible and the most correct. The community as a gathering of subjective members may form by its practice the most impartial criteria of valorization of both the conveniences and inconveniences in the society.    

At the very outset of such a system, destructively oriented members, or those having a perverse idea of the conveniences may exist in such a society. Such members may positively evaluate negative actions in the community, and assess as positive those people who act unacceptably, which would create difficulties for a positive social orientation. In this regard, the assessment made in the beginning would not have to bring significant conveniences and inconveniences to the members of society. On the other side, the perverse evaluation may not be significantly present because a destructive society cannot survive. The persons that would still apply a destructive mode of the assessment would not be able to hide their destructive orientation and, consequently, their harmful activities, and would to a greater extent receive negative evaluations from society. This would force them to pay more attention to their own orientation, to get to know themselves and their powers and to find a way to realize a constructive direction.   

The evaluation of one individual will not have a significant impact on society, irrespective of the assessment they give, while society as all individuals together will have an enormous influence on the activity of individuals in the community. Such a system would eliminate, in its very roots, the possibility of an emergence of extremely inconvenient leaders, nationalists, chauvinists, racists, and all potential dictators and sadists influencing the society inconveniently or destructively.   

Furthermore, the system would allow each individual to reach satisfaction by giving a negative evaluation to an individual who creates inconveniences to them or to society. Such pleasure is more favourable, more constructive and more efficient than any form of revenge that the alienated society practices. Needless to say, satisfaction also brings the power of reward by positive evaluation, by which the individual supports and makes richer the individual creating conveniences.     

The proposed assessment system would allow each member of society to actually receive equal legislative, judicial and executive power in the distribution of rewards and punishments in society. As the assessed person would have no opportunity to complain. The community would take into account the needs of each member, which would contribute to the formation of a convenient social orientation.   

Once such a system is introduced, each individual will try to get to know another individual and their needs in order not to inflict inconveniences to them unintentionally. The individual loves more the people that he gets to know more. In such a society, the individual will behave vis-à-vis other individuals with respect and in good faith. They will try to act in the manner in which they will bring to the other individual and the society as whole fewer inconveniences and more conveniences.   

It may be assumed that the system of mutual assessment will lead to a grouping of people according to the principle of related interests. Society members with equal interests will become relatively isolated to accomplish in mutual contact more conveniences and avoid the creation of inconveniences to the society members with opposite interests. In this way, the system will allow the exercise of different interests in the society and development of different orientations.   

In such a system all inhabitants will permanently try to create the most significant possible conveniences to individuals and society as a whole. Historically viewed, one can accept the rule that in the cases where such social orientation existed, the society used to prosper and lived a prosperous and constructive life, while in systems where individuals found conveniences to the detriment of the society; a destructive orientation used to occur leading to the break-up of the social order.   

The system of mutual assessment of society members may significantly diminish the need for setting the norms of social relations and increase the freedom of the society, because individuals in general, and leaders in particular, would not be doing what they would not like others to do to them. Such a system will reduce the need for the activity of legislative bodies because individuals will to a greater extent avoid the inconvenient and especially the destructive actions. Still, judges and prosecutors conducting proceedings against individuals, as well as the authorities caring for order and protecting the society will certainly still have work to do for some period, and that is why they will need to have assessment immunity. Their work will be assessed by special commissions.   

Individual establishment of eligibility criteria in the society may, unlike rigid normative acts, have a deeper and broader impact on the actions in society. Such an assessment will create unwritten rules of social behaviour that will allow convenient changes in society, something that normative acts cannot do. In the developed world, direct assessment of each individual about the free movement of any other individual or association needs to be the fundamental law of regulation of social actions. In such a system, social change will have to suit the needs of society. In this way, social rules and regulations, including judicial authorities as alienated forms of valorization, and setting the norms of the social movement, would become superfluous.   

There is no doubt that the rules set by referendum for collective action, and the equal right for assessing the freedom of individual actions, constitute the highest degree of democracy because the will of the people is exercised directly from above and from below, thus allowing the greatest prosperity of the society.   

As such form of democracy incorporates anarchy; I have given it a contradictory name of democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy represents the primary key for the resolution of problems in society. It is what society has been missing so far, to overcome inconveniences in itself unconditionally. Democratic anarchy will form the rules for social behaviour that will mostly suit the society members that will meet most needs of the society, that will bring most prosperity to the society, and because of that, it needs to be accepted as such.   

The commune's policies will no longer be tailored in alienated centers of political power. The commune's policies will be based on the needs of each individual inhabitant, and all of the needs of all inhabitants together will form the rules for joint activity. That is why we can call it a humanistic policy. It presents the future of democracy. I hope that at one point in time somewhere some political party will adopt partly or in whole the program described in this book. That it will present such a program to its citizens and win elections. It will be the beginning of significant political system reform, and of a considerable development of the society in all regards.

 Back to Top