Esteban Trev Thor Mann I perceive a deeper issue to ponder here... why the push towards the group ... say rather than towards the individual willful pursue of the appropriate course of action... and/or/with a combination of the previous two ways... 

what if the individual is not yet ready for the great next 'new' system? why for example focus on conflicts and crises facing humanity rather than the opportunities and possibilities at the door? Why are so many individuals working to persuade other individuals to embrace the social organization rather than working to empower the individual righteous voices... It's like I was saying to someone yesterday if we are in an interchange between doing what I want and what you want we might never resolve the matter... whilst if we are in an interchange between doing what someone wants and what be the rule of law it seems a bit different... what most individuals often fail to realize is that the rule of law be established by some individual decrees made by individuals who claim now this is how everyone will behave... in line with what they think/feel/hold proclaim...

Like · Reply ·  1 · 19 hrs

Thor Mann I do question the unquestioned 'unity' principle: if we accept the pursuit of life and happiness as a human right as including the right to 'make a difference' in one's life, we can't also insist on group provisions that imply one 'unified' common life style etc. for everybody. But some group provisions are meaningful and even necessary. And the challenges we face seem to urge that the will have to be global -- take air traffic or international ocean traffic rules. My favorite simple example is the rule of which side of the road we drive on: it's arbitrary -- countries have different rules that work equally well, but without such a rule we'd have much more trouble reaching our different individual destinations. The question is: how many such basic 'global' or group rules / agreements / laws are really necessary? And what criterion to use: e.g. the number and value of 'difference' opportunities created by a rule as opposed to the value of the opportunities destroyed or constrained?

Like · Reply ·  1 · 12 hrs

David Braden According to Dunbar's number "rules" are necessary where the size of the group exceeds about 150 people. In smaller groups each individual has empathy for all other individuals . . . it is difficult for the human brain in a larger group.

I like Elinor Ostrum's suggestions that the power to make rules be assigned to the smallest group possible. That means the global authority need only have authority for air and ocean traffic.

Like · Reply · 2 hrs · Edited

Esteban Trev David Braden this means that the global authority and others needs to follow the right decrees even of a single individual who voiced said right decree... note that the smallest 'group' possible is a group consisting of a single individual.