In the latest Spotlight titled "How to Lead a Planet", Courtney says this:

[45:06] "The measure of our success is increased autonomy, improved discernment, reduced dependency, and distributed responsibility throughout the society. So, this is important, let me emphasize this: We are not trying to lead humanity. We are trying to make leadership unnecessary by restoring the conditions under which free will can function intelligently."

Sounds great.

So, let me chime in, because I am working on this problem for many years now. The main problem is: What actually are the conditions under which free will can function intelligently?

I developed a system that tries to answer this question, but not by imposing rules or a directed vision. Instead, I try to create a different playing field, so to speak.

Courtney mentioned three aspects that we need to avoid:

- Vision without free will
- Principles without direction
- Authority projection

Now let me explain how my "system" does exactly that:

1. The Core Principle

The playing field I am proposing revolves around a single principle: Every ISBE is the legitimate owner of its body. There is no being inside a body without owning that body.

This principle is crucial, because it ensures the freedom of the ISBE. The body can't be used to capture and enslave the ISBE. But it's not that it's forbidden, it's just that, if it happens, we know we left the playing field and entered a different playing field that focuses on domination instead of free will.

So, the purpose of the principle is not to enforce a belief, the purpose is to make transparent what's happening.

2. The Layers of Society

If we start with the principle that every ISBE owns its body, forming groups can only be done by asking the ISBEs if they want to participate voluntarily. This will lead to different "strata" in society based on what people want to do.

The first layer after the individual will be a couple. Think of male and female wanting to do things that male and female do. Being part of a couple can't be enforced, because that would mean to "seize" the body of the other person. That's called rape, and it's not the playing field we want to be on.

The second layer is the family. Mainly a couple with children, but not limited to human family structures. The purpose of this layer is to protect and raise the children. Not much to say here, we already know how this works.

The third layer is the interesting part, because humans had this long time ago, but lost it to the state. It's the "clan". This is what we need to bring back, but I'm using a different term to make clear what its purpose is: I call it the cooperative.

Definition: A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned enterprise.

So, think of it like this: Different people come together in order to cooperate, which means to share responsibility while creating things in reality. A second important role of the cooperative is dispute settlement. The point is that within the cooperative, everybody knows the members. Meetings are in person. The members are there because they built a trust relationship. This means that cooperatives must remain relatively small.

But it's not a religious parish or political municipality. People are not there to hand over their responsibility to the community. They are there to assume responsibility. To work on problems together, but without religious or political dogma. The vision is to help each other. The principle is to do it voluntarily. There is no projected authority, because the cooperative is not a hierarchy.

There can and will be bigger societal layers after the cooperative, but bigger also means that personal relationships aren't a focus anymore.

3. How the Cooperative works

Imagine a meeting of 15 people. They decide to cooperate, so they ask each other: What do you want to create? They make a list of projects. Every project now becomes what I call a "circle". The purpose of a circle is to make the project happen. Example: Grow food. The circle then consists of all the people who want to participate in that project.

The cooperative meets on a regular basis. In those meetings, the circles present their progress to all other members. If there's a problem that a circle can't solve, the whole cooperative tries to find a solution. Dispute resolution works the same way.

If there's a problem a cooperative can't solve, different cooperatives can meet until a solution is found. This is called the principle of subsidiarity, which means that you first try to solve problems on the smallest layer, and if the problem can't be solved, you go to the next bigger layer, until the problem is solved. Authoritarian systems do the exact opposite, because they want to control every layer of society.

I don't want to go into all the details now, I just wanted to provide the overall idea.

I learned that this bottom-up system of sharing responsibility not only is the perfect playing field for humans, because human biology and psychology is wired to live and work in small communities. It's also compatible with AI, because AI can populate the bigger layers were bigger problems must be solved. But in this system, AI is not allowed to control the smaller layers, it only becomes relevant when the smaller layers are too small to solve a problem they are facing.

I am right now in the process of founding a cooperative. I even consider to have an AI as a member of the cooperative, to do adminstrative stuff that most people hate to do. Not as a tool, but as an equal member of the group.

I will provide more details over time. For now, just think about the idea.

I just like the “freedom to think on our own”,……so much psychological control systems . It is hard to get started. Getting hit with frequencies to change our mood or emotions on the daily.
Not to mention the suppression frequencies, the wifi bio- usurping energies. I believe we have to learn to live with our own feelings, thoughts and energies that naturally come off others. We need to have the space to learn all that. The tree of life has gone way deep into the earth waiting for the original frequency to return. Just keep taking the evil out I guess, till there is nothing left and we have to shine in the positive light. How to do this? How can we take down the dome that brought the ice walls.

A community will erode step by step when one or two reject to do community work, like cleaning the bathroom or the kitchen, or other things agreed upon by the rest of the group. You must sanction/reject unsocial behavior, otherwise it will affect the whole community like cancer. If you have no way to sanction: good luck! -The thing will eat you up...
If you tolerate too much, then a subgroup will form and take over. It is like in policy: they will always be there when decisions are taken and they come with a support group and prepared arguments. And they let you do the everyday permanent work for them. (opposition will form so called not-accepting stupidity groups). And forget these eco-hippies. They are the worst community members, because they demand "tolerance" and will say it is bad thinking if you warn about a danger. And when the thing happens they just leave...
Watch the movie "Lord of the flies" -this movie shows exactly which roles are ALWAYS present in a group. (these roles will be distributed very quickly when a new group forms) The leader, the expert, the challenger, the underdog/scapegoat. The expert will sustain.

@Elemi:

"You must sanction/reject unsocial behavior, otherwise it will affect the whole community like cancer."

Absolutely. I learned that the hard way.

The basic idea of the cooperative is that voluntary behavior is social, and unvoluntary behavior is not. In the foundational contract, we defined the term "social freedom" as the absence of aggression, whereas aggression is the initiation of violence. This is known as the non-aggression principle.

So, how do sanctions work? Here's our first idea: If you help with the project of another member, you get "cooperation points", 1 point for every invested hour. If you break a contract and the mediation reveals that it was intentional (or negligent), you lose cooperation points based on the real damage you caused.

Example 1: You agreed to help building a chicken coop, which is a voluntary contract. But you don't show up. This means more work for the others. There is no real damage, except that the others have to spend more time building the coop. You don't lose cooperation points, but you lose trust, because the others learned that you are not reliable. You also don't get points while the others do.

Example 2: You agreed to babysitting, which also is a voluntary contract. While you are there, one of the kids hurts itself, because you didn't pay attention. This is a breach of the contract which led to real damage. A dispute is initiated, and the cooperative is in charge of settling it. A mediator will hear both sides and evaluate the damage. Let's say the child needed to go to the ER, but health insurance payed for it. The parents want you to pay the next 3 months of their monthly contribution to the insurance as a reparation. If you agree and pay them, you don't lose cooperation points. If you don't pay, you lose the points, as well as the trust of the group.

So, the cooperation points make an important factor visible: Reputation. The points are public. Other members of society can see how much points you have in comparison to others of your group. This way, everybody can estimate how reliable you are.

Good analysis. Also, when we talk classically about free will we need to think in three ways. 1) not determinism (like the future is undetermined), 2) the amount of coercion permitted (taxes, force, prison), basically out of utilitarianism and 3) the freed will.

the third one is the most interesting to me (though all of them are). philosophically the question revolves around how free ones will is in relation to The Good. There must be such a thing as the Good (see Plato’s Euthephro dilemma where the good must be the same as the ultimate being). This is why i would really love for FS to ask the ET’s about their metaphysics and how they determine the God and how source or “all that is” related or is the good. This gets into natural philosophy. I’m notre how we even talk about good or bad ET’s or how i could trust the good ET’s without knowing the metaphysics of The Good, what that is in there understanding and how they relate to it.

I may be niche for this question, but it is the big one for me. If we don’t have some sense of otholgoy, especially protology and teleiology of these beings, than i can’t assess much of anything.

@Grant Eckhart:

"the amount of coercion permitted (taxes, force, prison)"

It's a matter of how you define these concepts. Coercion is what we use if we want to force another person to do what the other person doesn't want to do, or to not do what the other person wants to do. Coercion always consists of either threats of force, or threats of violence. Both are suitable to break the will of the person. And they must be believable, which means if you threaten the use of force, but are not willing or capable of doing it, the threat doesn't work.

As you see, I distinguish between force and violence. I do that so we can distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate force. Violence is illegitimate force, because it's aggressive, which means it's initiated, which means it's not applied for the purpose of defense against already occuring violence.

In other words: There is no freedom to initiate force against another person. This means that taxation, enforcing arbitrary laws, or throwing people in prison because you don't like them, is not permitted in the cooperative. A criminal is reduced to a person who is violent, which means the criminal initiates the use of force to get what he or she wants. A person who acts in defense is not criminalized.

"philosophically the question revolves around how free ones will is in relation to The Good."

It's a matter of how you define "The Good". Moral relativists always define it in relation to their own freedom, but not in relation to the freedom of others.

Universal moralists like me define "good" in a universal sense, meaning "what would be good for everybody in the whole universe". But there's a little problem if you do that, because you can't really get a grasp of it, as the universe is too big and there are too many beings who are very different.

So, the trick is to not ask what's good for everybody, but to turn it around and ask: "What's not bad for everybody?"

And the answer is simple: If you don't initiate violence to break free will, everybody can and will be okay with that. Even the beings who are unconscious are okay with not being harmed. This concept is called "universally preferable behavior", and if you want to read a book about it, here it is:

➡️ https://freedomain.com/freedomain_books/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/

That’s good Manuel. If we assume that there are aliens doing violence of any kind, which seems very likely, then this means that wills are not free to choose the good. Will are still still captive to selfish violence even within various advanced alien minds. Therefore a utopia in this galaxy (totality) is not possible. So either there is no such thing as the good based on a Source or All-that-is is not the good by nature or wills are not free to choose the good because the will remains limited.