Harmonizing Motives

Comments and criticisms are very welcome 

This web page  suggests a  conflict resolution procedure which would make it necessary for everyone to pursue agreement with everyone on what is fair in any situation.  This necessity would motivate a universal pursuit of universal agreement on fairness.   Logic proves that these circumstances would cause everyone to look for leaders who have proven their success in formulating universally agreeable routines and settlements.  Power struggles and all their diversions would be avoided.

What is suggested here might, at first glance, appear to be totally unworkable.  But please follow the logic and think it through.  There are logical reasons why the consequences would be the opposite of what you might at first expect.

First, to end power struggles, an arbitration procedure that could not be manipulated, would have authority to interpret or override any law.  And to provide optimum leadership, arbiters would be faced with an overriding need to act and rule in ways that are agreeable to all people -- thereby motivating them to seek expert advice from people who have proven their ability to formulate universally agreeable settlements.

A more detailed explanation of how it would work, follows this preview:

An arbitration procedure, which is called a harmonizing resolution procedure, could be established, which would have two basic characteristics:

1.  Anyone could call for resolution against anyone for any reason.  Please follow the logic as explained on the rest of this web page before evaluating this idea.

2.  For each case of resolution that is called for, 7 arbiters would be selected completely at random from a roster that anyone could voluntarily sign up on.  These randomly selected arbiters would have 30 days to unanimously agree on a settlement which would apply to up to 50 people, for a time period of 6 months.  Again, please follow the logic before evaluating this idea.

This harmonizing resolution procedure would replace all power struggles with a universal  need to pursue true universal agreement.  This need would result because of the following predicaments:

1.  The randomly selected arbiters would have to act and rule in universally agreeable ways in order to avoid being accused and called to a subsequent resolution after they have finished their own 30 days of arbitration.  The subsequent resolution would be settled by 7 new arbiters selected completely at random, who would have the same need to act and rule in a universally agreeable way. 

2.  In order to act and rule in universally agreeable ways, randomly selected arbiters would need to seek advice from experts who have proven their ability to formulate universally agreeable settlements. 

3.  In order for anyone to be an expert advisor, able to formulate universally agreeable settlements, a person would need to seek out and negotiate with expert representatives of every concerned interest group who, likewise, are seeking universal agreement.  This need  would automatically cause the most universally agreeable leaders to come forward and be recognized, respected, and compensated. 

4.  Under the above described circumstances, no minority could be oppressed or suppressed in any way, because one honest disagreement on the part of any single person would eliminate the usefulness of whatever arrangement is in dispute.  The sincere experts would respond by finding some settlement that is agreeable to all concerned.  In order to reach such agreement, all concerned would need  to be honest and to forsake all prejudice.

5.  Since arbiters would have unlimited authority for the case that they are called to arbitrate, they would have authority to penalize anyone who stands in the way of the universal pursuit of universal agreement.  Therefore, accusers as well as the accused, would need to forsake all prejudice in order to pursue universal agreement.  The same would be true of anyone who might try to bribe or threaten anyone in any way.  All could be immediately penalized by the randomly selected arbiters. 

6.  Arbiters could not abuse their authority in any way, because of their need to act and rule in universally agreeable ways in order to avoid being penalized by subsequent calls for resolution.  They would be watched by experts of all interests who could not be fooled.  Any of them could call for a subsequent arbitration against any arbiter who acted or ruled contrary to the ruling principle -- the universal pursuit of universal agreement.

7.  Anyone contemplating making a call for arbitration, would need to honestly forsake all prejudice in order to avoid making a disagreeable call which would result in themselves being penalized.

8.  Expert advisors would have reason to find ways to advise people on what would constitute an agreeable call for resolution, but they could not conspire to suppress any interest group, since their usefulness to the randomly selected arbiters would depend on their ability to discover agreement with expert representatives of every interest group.  Experts from the diverse interest groups would watch each other.  Though they might fool some people, they could not fool competing experts who would not hesitate to call them to arbitration.

9.  The only criteria that would qualify any person as "expert" would be his ability to find universally agreeable settlements.  One single disagreement by any honest adversary, would reduce his usefulness.

It is natural for most people to seek their own self interest.  It is also natural for most people to try to respect each other.  But because people are not totally aware of all of the consequences of their actions, the efforts of some people might conflict with the efforts of other people.  When that happens, the dispute must somehow be settled.  And so there is a need for some kind of procedure for resolving conflicts.

Politics is a contest to see who is given the authority to coercively enforce the plans of their choice.  But the qualities that tend to win political contests have no more to do with harmonious human relations, than do the qualities that win a boxing match.  If your television needs to be fixed, would you conduct a boxing match to find a TV repair man?  If we need leaders who are able to formulate universally agreeable customs, routines, and laws, then political contests make no more sense than boxing matches. 

A harmonizing resolution procedure, as described on this web page could reform for any government, which logically would motivate everyone to seek out and cooperate with people who have proven their ability to formulate universally agreeable plans. 

The above logic is more fully explained as follows:

Why does there appear to be conflict among people?  Is it because it is human nature for people to be selfish, greedy, ignorant, aggressive, and so on?  The suggestion here is that these qualities are effects, rather than causes.  They are effects of political systems that make it more personally profitable to overpower adversaries rather than to seek agreement with them.  These effects would be greatly reduced or eliminated if political systems could be reformed so that they would reward the true and honest pursuit of universal agreement, while penalizing every attempt to overpower rather than to agree. 

When dealing with each other, there are 2 basic motives in every person.  The first -- the positive motive -- is the truth about us.  It is the desire to live in a world where every person agrees with every other person on a fair way to deal with our diverse appearances, tastes, preferences, and abilities, thereby maximizing for everyone their options for peaceful free choice.

The second -- the negative motive -- is the desire to remove what are seen as obstacles to the desire of the positive motive.  The obstacles appear as the evils which seem to make  universal agreement impossible in this world.  They appear as such things as selfishness, greed, prejudice, ignorance, and laziness.  One person's resistance to such evils, appears through the eyes of his adversary as the evil that his adversary seeks to resist.  Mutual adversaries therefore compete to see which can overpower the other, rather than to seek agreement.

The positive motive usually yields to the negative motive because of the appearances of evil.  And so the negative motive has usually had control in all forms of government.  Yet, the positive motive tends to try to hold the negative motive in check, as people naturally try, when it seems possible, to understand, to forgive, and to reform rather than fight.

If our negative motive was not held in check by our positive motive, our negative motive, logically, would escalate the power struggle, motivating the mutual adversaries to abandon all scruples, concluding that the end justifies any means.  The battle would boil down to a contest to see who is the most successful terrorist.  Life would become terror.

A harmonizing resolution procedure would elevate our positive motive to a position of control in any government. 
.


Motives.

Yielding to our negative motive, we are tempted to separate into opposing political factions instead of seeking agreement with our adversaries for our mutual benefit.

Why? Because our political procedures reward conquest more than agreement. Why seek agreement with your adversary if you can overpower him politically, especially when he is trying to overpower you? That question is our constant temptation.

Webster's dictionary says that a motive is "something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act."  What provides a need or desire?  Isn't it a set of circumstances?  For example, if a person needs food to eat, but has none, these circumstances would motivate that person to act in such a way as to acquire food to eat.

If a person has a dispute with another person, would the mutual adversaries be motivated to forsake prejudice in order to seek agreement with each other?  Or would they be motivated to compete to see which is able to overpower the other?

Wouldn't it depend on their circumstances?  In order for both to be motivated to seek  mutual agreement, both would need to be convinced that their adversary would have the same pressing need to agree rather than compete.  If you would like to seek agreement, but you fear that your adversary seeks instead to overpower you, then those circumstances would motivate you to compete with your adversary, rather than to seek agreement with him?

Political procedures are possibly the most significant circumstances which form the motives for mutual adversaries.  Political procedures determine how a third party might intervene in order to settle a dispute.  Political procedures might provide each of the mutual adversaries a way of using or manipulating those procedures in order to gain legal authority to overpower rather than to seek agreement.  Don't these circumstances provide everyone with a motive to compete with their adversaries rather than to seek agreement with them? No matter how much you might otherwise like to agree rather than to compete, political circumstances provide you with the motive to compete rather than to seek agreement. 

The basic logic.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the basic logic.  Further explanation follows.
Please carefully follow this logic.  Look for and inform me of any errors that you might find.

1.  If every person had the free option to call for resolution against any other person for any reason, then no person could avoid being called for resolution  without always acting in ways that are agreeable to every other person.

2.  If arbiters had legal authority to penalize, at their discretion, either the accuser or the accused or both, then both the accuser and the accused would need to act in ways that are agreeable to any arbiter, in order to avoid penalty by resolution.

3. If arbiters had sole authority to immediately penalize any attempt to bribe or threaten them, then no one could bribe or threaten them without the likelihood of being penalized.

4.  If it is possible for a person to somehow deliberately place himself or a person of his choice into the position of arbiter, then there would be competition in effort to control resolutions and therefore overpower adversaries.

5. The only way to avoid a contest to see who becomes arbiter, is to select arbiters completely at random for each case of resolution that is called for.

6.  If every person had the free option to call for resolution against any arbiter after the arbiter had finished arbitrating his case, then no arbiter could avoid being penalized by subsequent resolution without making settlements that are agreeable to everyone who is, in turn, pursuing true universal agreement.

7.  If every arbiter needed to settle agreeably to all people, then if he questioned his ability to do this, he would need to seek advice from experts who have proven their ability to devise settlements that are universally agreeable.

8.  In order to be an expert, able to devise universally agreeable settlements, a person would need to seek out expert representatives of every possible interest group, and negotiate with them to arrive at unanimously agreeable solutions and guidelines.

9. If anyone could call for resolution against any expert, no expert could avoid his true purpose -- that is, to devise settlements that are agreeable to every person who is in turn seeking true universal agreement. 

10.  If all of the above were prevailing circumstances, then every person, in order to avoid being penalized by resolution, either as an accused or as an accuser or as a arbiter or as an expert advisor, would need to forsake all personal prejudice and honestly find a way to estimate what all of the most successful experts would consider to be universally agreeable.  The motive to pursue universal agreement, would be universal.

11. Given all of the above, all appeal would gravitate to the most successful proven experts on whatever issue is in question, and all experts would in turn appeal to those impersonal standards of cooperation that enable universal agreement.  Those impersonal standards of universal agreement, or whoever or whatever it is that caused our existence, would be our true government.  

12. No minority could be oppressed  or neglected, with the exception of that minority which would cling to harmful prejudice, refusing to pursue universal agreement.  Only the would-be oppressors would be themselves suppressed.

The Harmonizing motive.

This idea for harmonizing motives came to me from a statement that was made by Jesus in Matthew 5: 25 and 26.  He said,

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."

The above statement implies that the basic law of all laws is that every person must seek agreement with every adversary.  Logically, "every person" includes not only you, with respect to all of  your adversaries, but also applies to all of your adversaries with respect to you.  In other words they must seek agreement with you, as surely as you must seek agreement with them.  And the statement further implies that any person would always have the option to deliver to the judge, anyone who refuses to seek agreement.  It also implies that the judge would then determine which of the mutual adversaries is refusing to seek agreement, and then rule against that person.  

This, of course, implies that the judge would be incorruptibly able to rule correctly.  Our biggest challenge, therefore, might be to find some way to establish such incorruptibly capable judges.  As we all have observed, human beings seem seldom, if ever, to be so incorruptible or so capable.   And since the judges would therefore seldom, if ever, be perfectly incorruptible or capable, just as big of a challenge might be to agree on some way to prevent them from abusing their authority.

In effort to find such ideal judges, or "arbiters" as I call them, we might consider conducting some kind of contest to find people most qualified for the job.  But the big problem with that idea is how to agree on who would conduct the contest.  How could we be sure that the contest would be designed and conducted fairly and accurately?

To the other extreme, arbiters might be chosen completely at random, so that no one could manipulate the judging system.  But then, it might seem that the randomly chosen arbiters might hardly ever be qualified to be judges.  The founders of our American Constitution tried to design a combination of random selection of jurors, with judges who were appointed by elected officials, in an effort to install checks and balances on the power of any of them.  But the door remained open for skillful and resourceful manipulators to find ways of corrupting the system.  Wealthy people had far more options to use the system to maintain and increase their wealth, at the expense of poorer people who are at the mercy of whoever has the power at any given time..


How to establish the most qualified arbiters.


Suppose first, that any person would always have the option to call for resolution against any other person, for any reason.  We would then leave it up to the arbiters to determine which of the mutual adversaries is refusing to pursue true universal agreement on what is fair.  The possibility that the arbiters would make a ruling that would penalize any frivolous or unnecessary call for resolution, would thereby deter people from abusing this option.

The spirit of the pursuit of universal agreement begins with the totally random selection of arbiters, so that the only way to be sure of having an arbiter that rules as you desire, would be to mold your desires in such a way as to be agreeable to any and all people.  The obvious problem with this is that a person chosen at random would seldom be qualified.  But this problem would be solved by the option for anyone to call for a subsequent resolution against any arbiter.

Suppose that if someone calls for resolution, then seven arbiters would be selected completely at random from a list that they voluntarily signed up on.  The option to call for resolution against anyone for any reason, would thereby provide anyone with the option to call for resolution even against the arbiters themselves, along with their expert advisors .  But in order for a arbiter to be a arbiter, he must be allowed to go ahead and settle his case, and his ruling would then be official.  Then after he has finished the case that he was randomly selected to resolve, he would be vulnerable to being called to a subsequent resolution, to be settled by seven new randomly chosen arbiters.  

Therefore, anyone who is convinced that any or all of the arbiters were in any way unfair, could call for a subsequent resolution.  Then seven new arbiters would be selected completely at random to rule on the accusation against the former arbiters.  The possibility of this fate would surely motivate any arbiter to honestly and diligently seek advice from experts who have proven their ability to formulate rulings that are agreeable to anyone  who, in turn, honestly pursues universal agreement.  Only those people who refuse to pursue true universal agreement, would lose.

The experts would likewise be vulnerable to being called for resolution, by anyone who truly believes them to be unfair.  And anyone contemplating any call for resolution would thereby be motivated to always act in universally agreeable ways.  The motive to pursue universal agreement, would itself be universal.  Circumstances, as described above, would penalize anyone who refused to honestly pursue true universal agreement.

To sum it up, this is basically how the procedure would work::

1. Every person would always have the option to call for resolution against any other person for any reason.  And this means that even the arbiters themselves and their expert advisers could be called to a subsequent resolution by anyone who disagrees with anything about their actions or rulings..  

2. After having tried and failed to agree with his adversary, a person might call the police, requesting resolution -- his last resort. The police, knowing that they themselves could be called for resolution by anyone who accused them of any kind of unfairness, would then be motivated to take fair and reasonable steps to make sure that the accuser and accused appeared for resolution at a time set by the chief of police, who would also know that he could be called for resolution by anyone.

3. A panel of 7 arbiters would then be selected completely at random from a list that they had voluntarily signed up on.  They would have 20 days to make a ruling involving as many as 50 people of their designation.  After the 20 days, they would no longer be arbiters, thereby being vulnerable to being accused and called to a subsequent resolution.

4. The arbiters, knowing that they too are vulnerable to being accused of any kind of unfairness, and subsequently after the 20 days, being called for resolution, would be motivated to seek advice from proven experts.

5. The experts, knowing that they too are vulnerable to subsequent resolution, would investigate the case and recommend settlements. Then the arbiters would, by unanimous vote, approve the official settlement for the case.

6. The official settlement would be coercively enforced by the police for a period of 6 months or until all concerned happened to mutually agree on some other settlement. The only exception to this would be if the settlement sent a person to prison. In that case, the only way the person could get out of prison would be for someone to call for another resolution, and the other resolution rules that the prisoner should then be released.

Can you think of any way to corrupt this procedure? Can you think of any way that a person could use the procedure to personally gain in any way without honestly seeking true agreement with anyone who challenges the fairness of it?  Please be specific and explain logically exactly how it could be done.

The numbers, 7 arbiters, 20 days, and 6 months are just my own estimation.  They could be whatever is agreed on when this procedure is established.

Qualifications for arbiters.

You might be concerned about the qualifications of the randomly chosen arbiters.  Should there be a way to screen them?  If there was, what would prevent someone from manipulating the screening procedure, thereby corrupting the resolution?

But would you sign up on the list of potential arbiters if you were not confident that a subsequent resolution would consider you to be qualified?  If you weren't sure about it, wouldn't you ask for advice?  Wouldn't those who care about you make sure that you were advised?

In general, whoever is of sound enough mind to know what the list is for, and who voluntarily considers signing up on it, would also be able to understand the need to be qualified enough to seek expert advice. The effect is that in most cases, people would naturally screen themselves by not signing up if they doubted their own qualifications. The few exceptions would be dealt with when someone called for a subsequent resolution to rule concerning the qualifications of a former arbiter.  And these exceptions would provide evolving guidelines for all who contemplate whether to sign up on the list.

Realistically, what would the reasonable qualifications be?  The answer is to try to estimate what any expert would think.  What do you think?

You might doubt whether anyone would sign up.  If no one  signed up, then of course, the whole idea wouldn't work.  But we know that there are among us at least some unselfish and courageous people who voluntarily do things that most other people would rather not do.  Those who understood the value of this procedure and were confident enough to trust their honest desire for true universal agreement, would be the most qualified arbiters among us.  They would be the ones who would sign up.  

Qualifications for the expert advisors.

The expert advisors would in effect be the true arbiters.  But they would qualify themselves by proving their ability to formulate settlements that are universally agreeable.  Without that ability, they would be of no use to the randomly chosen arbiters.  Would-be experts would in one sense compete with each other, in their effort to be agreeable with all.  There would be self-appointed experts representing every race, religion, gender, or group of any kind.  They could accuse each other, calling for resolution against each other.  The only way any of them could successfully arbitrate a case, would be to find solutions that would be agreeable to all experts who in turn are truly pursuing universal agreement.  Therefore, in order to be successful, they would need to forsake all prejudice, and be honest and sincere.  Whoever proved the ability to do that would be the only ones of any use to the randomly chosen arbiters.  They would be the ones the arbiters would choose as their best assurance against being subsequently arbitrated against.

If anyone tried to find some tricky way to manipulate and corrupt the procedure, no matter how high-tech the trick might be, someone among the competing experts would be high-tech enough to see through the tricks and stand ready to call for resolution against any such attempted corruption. The only successful way for any and all of them, would be genuine honest pursuit of universal agreement.  All motivation would thereby be harmonized for the universal pursuit of universal agreement.  

Would this really be true?  Please look for errors in the logic.  Please see if you can find some realistic prospect for corrupting the procedure.  If there was such a prospect, then that would constitute a contrary motive.  If you find one, please inform me.

Bribes

Could the resolution officials be bribed? What would prevent the arbiters from immediately directing the police to arrest the person who attempted a bribe, and then including in their ruling some kind of penalty that would make that person wish he had not have attempted the bribe?  Wouldn't you expect a arbiter to do that? Wouldn't subsequent arbiters and their experts expect that?  In order to avoid themselves being penalized in subsequent resolution, the arbiters and their expert advisors would need to clearly and fairly penalize any attempt to bribe them.

If the briber tried to keep the bribe a secret, the purpose could only be to cause the arbiters to make an unfair ruling.  And an unfair ruling would motivate someone to call for a subsequent resolution to investigate it and decide how to penalize both the briber and the corrupt resolution officials. The deception would have less chance of success because it would be totally contrary to the principle of the whole procedure -- the honest pursuit of true universal agreement.

Threats

Could the resolution officials be threatened?  Someone might try, but consider their chances, compared to their chances in our current system.  In our current system, no one can be legally arrested unless they have violated a law.  Loopholes are invitations to manipulators.  But with this random arbiter procedure, anyone could call for resolution for any reason, and the arbiters, as advised by their experts, would decide what to do about that specific case.  This plugs up all loopholes.

This means that if you have a hunch that someone is planning some kind of threat, crime, or terror, you can call for resolution.  If the resolution officials agree that your hunch is worth investigating, they will decide whether there is a threat, and what to do to avoid the possibility.  Even if there is no conclusive evidence that the accused is guilty of a destructive plan, the experts would be expected to take fair and reasonable steps to make sure that the suspected evil plan can't happen, while still not unfairly penalizing the accused.  In our current system, it is harder to get anything done until a crime has already been committed, and then if the police violate the rules of evidence, the criminal will go free even if the illegally obtained evidence proves him guilty.  There would be no such loopholes when motives are harmonized by this harmonizing resolution procedure.

At the same time, you would need to truly trust your hunch and avoid any ulterior motives, since the experts would always be looking for such ulterior motives, and they would penalize you for it.

Trust

Maybe you might fear that we would all be looking over each other's shoulder, making our lives very uncomfortable.  But think some more. Each case would be investigated individually.  And the experts, having been chosen by arbiters who are trying to avoid subsequent resolution, would be among those who are the most successful at estimating the common ground that is agreeable to everyone, or as close to it as possible.

These intelligent experts would be aware of our concerns about looking over each other's shoulder.  And they would be expected to make rulings that would relieve us of this uncomfortable feeling.  In order to avoid themselves being accused and called to subsequent resolution, they would make rulings that would assure all of us that all we need to do is honestly make reasonable efforts to seek true agreement.

Would you like to be forgiven for honest human error?  Most people would.  The experts would know this, and rule accordingly. Being honest with yourself, if you made a costly human error, would you welcome help on how to rectify your error and avoid doing it again?  Most people would.  And the experts would rule accordingly.  For arbiters and their experts to fail to consider such things would be to risk being penalized by subsequent resolutions.

Is it fair to look over the shoulder of someone who reasonably might be a potential terrorist?  Is it fair to look over the shoulder of someone who you have no good reason to suspect of doing anything wrong? The answers to these questions that are the closest to being universally agreeable, would be the way the experts would advise, and the way the arbiters would rule.  And each instance would be evaluated individually according to the spirit.

Could your life be any more comfortable and confident than that, knowing that all you have to do is make a reasonable effort to seek fair agreement, knowing that you will be forgiven for human error, helped when you need it, and can be protected from the possibility of a crime before it is committed?

Remember that people contemplating a call for resolution would need, for their own sakes, to estimate what the experts are most likely to rule. And the arbiters, for their sakes, would need to estimate what any subsequent expert, selected by any randomly chosen arbiter would most likely rule. Therefore, everyone, no matter who they are, what they are doing, or where or when they are doing it, would need to always be estimating what is as universally agreeable as possible. Mutual trust would be maximized.

Law

You might be wondering about law.  In order for this resolution procedure to work, it would need the authority to overrule any application of law.  Would this leave us without laws?  No, but it would change laws into guidelines.  Guidelines are needed so that we can know what we can and cannot do without offending each other.

The difference between a law and a guideline is that the law is coercively enforced according to its letter, whereas a guideline serves to point the way according to its spirit.  No matter how many laws there might be, there will always be loopholes which enable manipulators to violate the spirit without violating the letter.  But when power is dissipated by this harmonizing resolution procedure, the spirit of all guidelines would be the sincere seeking of universally agreeable fairness.  There could be no loopholes because anyone could always challenge the application of a guideline whenever it violates the spirit, and the arbiters would always have to rule according to the spirit of universal agreement, in order to avoid themselves being penalized by subsequent resolution.

Knowing this, you would never hear any official say, "I have no choice, because the law requires me to do this," knowing that what he is doing is contrary to what is expected by anyone who honestly pursues universal agreement.  The spirit of universal agreement would over rule the letter every  time, because anyone with the spirit could always call for resolution against anyone who tried to violate the spirit.

Planning.

Government as we have known it, does many things that might really need to be done in order for people to be able to live and let live peacefully and comfortably.  Such things as zoning, regulation of traffic, regulation of commerce, environmental protection, help for needy people, and so on, are issues that many people feel very strongly about.  You might fear that a random arbiter procedure does not specifically provide for these things.  But think some more.  This harmonizing resolution procedure would provide for a universal motive to act in ways that are as universally agreeable as possible.  The procedure would do absolutely nothing to inhibit any effort to organize for mutual benefit.

The universal motive would exist, for leaders to lead, and for followers to follow.  If random resolution was established, many government organizations that already exist, might turn out to be as universally agreeable as anyone has yet figured out.  But given the motive for universal agreement, existing organizations might be adjusted according to more universally agreeable ideas as they become known.

These organizations might be viewed very different than in our current system.  People would look for them and cooperate with them to the extent that they prove to be useful in avoiding resolution, enabling people to know how to coexist harmoniously.  To the extent that they disrupt that goal, they would be abandoned.

Many people might have good ideas on how we might cooperate for our mutual benefit.  But in order for their ideas to work, they need to persuade people to listen and to cooperate.  In our current political system of competition for legal coercion, they can get no where until and unless they become successful competitors in that contest.  This necessity diverts a growing portion of time and effort away from the positive ideas that they have, towards the struggle for power.

But with the establishment of a random arbiter procedure, it would be much different.  Instead of the need to compete for legal coercion, the need would be to devise ideas that really work.  Everyone would be looking for ideas that really work – that really do enable people to cooperatively go about their business without offending each other and being called for resolution.  All you would need is an idea that really works, and people would come to you, wanting you to lead while they follow.

Taxes.

You might be thinking that organizations for social planning require money to pay the planners.  How would they be paid?  If by taxes, who would have the authority to decide who pays how much tax?

Must people be taxed, forcing them to buy houses, cars, televisions, potatoes, and so on?  Doesn't our demand for these things motivate us to willingly pay for them?  Why should it be any different with our demand for planning and for guidelines? Everyone would need these things in order to know how to live without constantly offending each other and being called for resolution. All we need is a procedure that enables each person to pay for the planning and guidelines of their choice. Why wouldn't there be a supply for that demand?  There would be no power struggle to take its place, and the universal need to agree would replace the need to coercively force people to pay taxes.

You can use your imagination. Maybe we would hire "planning parties", instead of joining political parties.  Each person would hire the party they trust the most to guide them in how to avoid resolution.  Or maybe we would arrange to have "proposal planning systems", enabling people with ideas to make their proposals, so that all of us could pledge our moral and maybe our monetary support to the plans of our choice.  Maybe our monetary pledges for a plan might be valid on the condition that the plan receives the support that it asks for in order to work.  The demand for efficient means for hiring planners whose ideas prove to be useful, would motivate the supply. You might have better ideas than these.

Ownership of property

This is the issue that is near the root of most disagreement. There are two basic sides which oppose each other on this issue. The harmonizing resolution procedure logically resolves the disagreement.

Idealistic communism.

On one side are those who believe that the earth as a whole is the common property of all human beings.  From this point of view, for any human to claim a portion of the earth, excluding anyone else's right to it, is not fair because people are not equal in their ability to stake their claims.  Those with greater ability would prosper while those with lesser ability would comparatively suffer.  A person should not have to suffer merely because he was born with less mental or physical ability than someone else.

Yet, it can't be denied that somehow the earth must be allocated so that each person can use his fair share of it.  How can this allocation be accomplished?  The only way that a communist knows is for the communist party to seize, by any means possible, totalitarian control of all legal means of coercion, so that they can coercively compel their idea of a fair allocation of the earth.

The problem is that there is disagreement on what is fair, and the resulting struggle for power consumes an ever increasing portion of time and effort, defeating the purpose and resulting in the opposite of the intention. Those who have gained the greatest influence on the use of legal coercion, are able to live in luxury while their defeated opponents are beaten into temporary submission – temporary until the oppressed are able to rebuild underground, sufficiently to revolt.

Free enterprise capitalism

On the other side are those who observe the power struggle and conclude that a dictator who has successfully defeated his opponents in the struggle for power, must perpetuate the oppression of his opponents in order to retain his power. This thereby corrupts whoever gains the power, resulting in a perpetually unfair and oppressive allocation of the earth.

From this point of view, the nearest we can come to a fair distribution of the earth is to let each person stake his claim according to first come, first serve.

Yet, it cannot be denied that first come, first serve cannot be accepted literally in all cases.  For example, the first to find water in a dry country cannot expect to have the sole authority to determine who gets water.  There can be violent disagreement on issues like this.  And so there has to be a way to resolve disputes over who owns what. This need seems to require a government with the power to resolve these disputes and to determine where and when the property rights of one person infringe on the property rights of another person.

A government with the power to make these decisions is thereby the focus of a power struggle -- the contest for legal coercion. And as the power struggle evolves, the losers in the competition are tempted to resort to illegal means in an effort to challenge what they see as an evil machine.

Communism and capitalism evolve towards each other, approaching a terrifying end, as the losers of the competition for legal coercion resort to extreme means. Only our natural desire for peace and harmony can temper, delay, and maybe avoid the terrifying end.  Thank goodness for the good in human nature.

The harmonizing resolution procedure resolves the issue.

Logically, the only way to fairly resolve disputes over the allocation of the earth is to remove all possibility of anyone controlling or manipulating the procedure that is used to resolve the disputes, thereby compelling all to seek a universally agreeable allocation.  And logically, the only way to do that is to select at random those who have the final say, while holding all equally accountable for what they do.  This is what a harmonizing resolution procedure would do.

With this procedure, the communists can have their idealistic desire – a distribution of the earth that is in accordance with fairness and equality, rather than in accordance with ability – and the free enterprise capitalists can have their idealistic desire – private ownership by each person of what he fairly should own, free to use it in any way that does not infringe on anyone else's right to do the same.

What it would boil down to is that you would own what any expert who knew your particular circumstances, would agree that you should own. Living by this principle, which would be the only way to avoid being penalized by resolution, all people would always be looking for common ground of agreement on all issues of ownership -- including such issues as help for needy people, ownership and control of public utilities, environmental protection, and so on.

Minorities

Imagine an ideal congress -- a group of representatives that truly includes ideal representatives of every single solitary person in the whole society.  Being ideal, each of these representatives would be people with unblemished reputations for being honest, intelligent, knowledgeable, and incorruptible.   Now suppose that the only way for this congress to pass a law, or change a law, or interpret a law, was for it to arrive at a unanimous agreement.  Absolutely nothing would be legally passed without the unanimous agreement of every member of this ideal congress.

Under these circumstances, what would be the chances of this congress passing any law that unjustly oppressed any minority? Logically, it could not happen, since the representative of that minority would not agree to any such thing, and without his agreement, there would be no unanimous agreement.

You might think that such an ideal congress is impossible among humans as we know them.  But how do you know?  Logically, the harmonizing resolution procedure proposed here, would have this exact effect.  The only way for a a arbiter to avoid being penalized by a subsequent resolution, would be to choose experts who are capable of  finding a universally agreeable settlement for the case.  If a resolution made a ruling that was not agreeable to one single person who himself truly seeks unanimous agreement, then that person or whoever represents that person, would not hesitate to call for a subsequent resolution against the resolution officials who made that ruling.

The experts that the arbiters would need to seek,  would play the role of the ideal congressmen.  They would be the ones who are the most universally trusted.  They would be the ones who had the knowledge, the intelligence, the determination, and the drive to seek out every other such trusted representative of every single other person and every single other interest in the whole society.  These trusted people would seek each other out, communicate with each other, and because of the unanimous determination to establish unanimously agreeable common ground, they would formulate guidelines that are agreeable to everyone who likewise seeks unanimous agreement.

As they seek each other out, they would need to ignore their irrelevant differences, such as race, gender, and so on.  The ones who would be sought would be the ones who prove themselves most able to resolve disagreements in a way that is unanimously agreed on as fair.  

Notice that this whole idea appeals only to those who truly seek unanimous agreement.  Anyone who seeks any kind of biased favor for any interest group, at the expense of some one else, would find no comfort anywhere in this procedure.  They would have no representation among those who arbitrate decisions.  Logically, they would be the only minority that really would be suppressed by this harmonizing resolution procedure.  Every selfish and unjust effort to profit in any way at the expense of anyone else, would be suppressed.

Religion.

You might doubt whether there is any  human being alive today who would qualify to be an ideal representative as described above.  But if this is true, then  logically, what would happen if the only way resolution officials could escape being penalized by subsequent resolution, was for them to find some such trusted person who actually could rule in a way that is agreeable to every other person who likewise seeks unanimous agreement?  The only logical resort would be to pray --  to appeal to whoever or whatever it is that is responsible for our being here, in the effort to be guided by that One who is no respecter of persons.  If prayer is the only resort for everyone, then the only hope for success for anyone would be to commit to the One, which would be the basis of universal agreement.  

In this effort, people would need to abandon their quarreling over what to call the One.  And they would need to abandon their quarreling over how to be saved or who can be saved.  Their common need would be universal agreement.  The effect would be that the only ones who can be "saved" would be those who truly commit to universal agreement.  And the logical conclusion must be that that is the substance of every sincere religion, no matter how they explain it.

Other issues.

Whatever problem you might imagine, would be a motive for someone to call for resolution. Therefore, any problem that you can imagine, would be dealt with by intelligent resolution officials who need, for their own sakes as well as all others, to make rulings that are as universally agreeable as anyone has yet figured out. What more could we as humans do to resolve disagreements?

Establishing the procedure.

Is there a part of you that would like to live in a world where everyone agreed with everyone on all issues of fairness -- enabling all people to freely pursue their own individual tastes and preferences?  The only limit on anyone's freedom would be if he infringed on anyone else's freedom. Everyone would agree on a fair way to disagree on individual tastes and preferences.  Freedom and peace would both be maximized.

There must be a part of every person that would like to live in such a world.  In that respect, we already have a near universal agreement on this desire for universal agreement.  But there might also be a part of every person that says that this world is just not like that.  Whether we like it or not, there are and always have been disagreements on what is fair.  Given that disagreement, many and maybe most of us, seek to overpower our adversaries rather than to seek agreement.  Probably none of us sees any realistic possibility of agreeing with adversaries who are not willing to seek agreement with us.  But, has there ever been a political arrangement that would place every mutual adversary into a predicament such that their only successful option would be to honestly pursue true universal agreement?  

Lacking that kind of political arrangement, it has always been our negative motive -- the part that assumes that reality requires us to try to overpower uncooperative adversaries -- that has always been in control.  That part has always been in control of most and maybe all people in their individual consciousness.  And that part has also always been in control collectively among us, so that our political systems reflect this assumption.

Our positive motive -- that part that would like to pursue true universal agreement on fairness -- would take control if and only if we became aware of a logically realistic way to truly motivate the universal pursuit of universal agreement.  That is what this idea offers.  

If there is error in the logic, please inform me so that corrections can be made, leading to a truly realistic plan.  Once such a plan is agreed on, what is there to prevent our positive motive from taking control, for the first time in history?

Who or what are we waiting for?  Ever since this idea came to me in 1970, I have tried many many ways of explaining it, while my own understanding of it evolved.  Most criticisms were that the human race is not ready for this, and it might be a few thousand years before we are.  And so now I ask, who or what are we waiting for?

Are we waiting for uncooperative people to evolve to the point where they are willing to cooperate?  If so, then what are we doing with those people now, with our current political systems?  Aren't we trying to track them down, arrest them, confine them, and reform them?  What would prevent us from doing the same thing if a harmonizing resolution procedure was established?  Everyone would have a motive to pursue universal agreement, which would require us to overpower anyone who refuses this pursuit.  The only difference would be that random selection of arbiters would eliminate the possibility of such uncooperative people manipulating the system.

So it is not the uncooperatives that we are waiting for.  A harmonizing resolution  procedure would deal with them in the same way that we attempt to deal with them  with our current system.  

Who then are we waiting for.  We must be waiting for that first part of us to take control, both individually and collectively.  We must be waiting for the good in us -- the part that really does wish for true universal agreement and cooperation. We are waiting for the good in us to become aware of a realistic way of pursuing this ideal.  And we are waiting for the good in each of us to communicate with each other, telling each other of our agreement with this idea, and cooperatively building a popular demand for it.  When the demand has grown sufficiently, politicians, in order to be elected, will need to formulate a way to actually establish the procedure.  

Must we forever be governed by the evil in us -- the part that assumes that evil is our eternal adversary which we must forever seek to overpower, over and over again, only to see it to rise again and again in ever more complicated forms?  

Evil cannot overcome evil.  Good must take the initiative and claim its rightful place as our government.

What should you do?   If you agree with the idea that adversity can be overcome only by motivating mutual adversaries to truly pursue true agreement with each other, then you could refer this web page to your friends and elected officials.  You could do that by sending the link or by copying any or all of it into your email, or you could summarize it in better words  -- whatever works.  When our elected officials receive enough support for the idea, they will need to take action to find a way to establish it, in order to stay in office.

If you don't agree with it, please tell me why by criticizing the logic of it.

Comments and criticisms are very welcome