New Social Contract

ASSUMPTIONS AND ARGUMENTS

Every body of collected knowledge is built on some fundamental assumptions and arguments. The items below are some of ours.

Rationality: We come down on the side of rationality rather than that of single-individual-revealed truth. Many, but not all, true believers argue that rationality has severe limits. Scientists recognize that, in quantum physics, we reach a point where rationality goes beyond the measurable limits of space-time. We believe however, that in international relations we are well within the limits of effective rationality. While we respect those who find the meaning of life in revealed truth of prophets, we are unwilling to acquiesce in the use of priesthoods as guides in international relations. We particularly reject this approach based on the centuries of slaughter caused by these approaches. For those who want to examine the limits of science in lay terms one of the most readable books is: The Dancing Wu Li Masters -an Overview of The New Physics, by Gary Zukav.

If you want to explore other aspects of uncertainty you might want to see the following sites: www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/,or

zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html, or

www.svsu.edu/~slaven/uncertainty/uncertainty1.html

A Preference for Action on Problems: In political problems there are times when inaction is best, but there is never a time when it is best not to act without deliberately deciding on inaction. The best leaders have always had a preference for action and, because they have "vision", they have thought deeply about the proper time and opportunity for action. Effective action is always dependent on appropriate timing and unfolding opportunity. However, there are those weak, indecisive people for whom the clock never chimes.

Power has Duties: The power to act means the ability to do good or to destroy by inaction. Powerful nations have a limited time in the sun and a duty to act rightly while they may. The time in the sun for the U.S. is now, and the time is limited. Augments for this can best be drawn from The Rise and Decline of Nations by Mancur Olson, and The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, by David S. Landers. By our selection of leaders we determine how long our time in the sun will last. When we elect inferior leaders without the requisite qualities for the leadership required of a most powerful nation, we hasten our national demise or irrelevance. We squander an opportunity for a more peaceful world.

Politics for the U.S. is Global: We can no longer think of national politics as being totally divorced from international politics. What we do internally interests and affects the globe. See "Tolerance" below.Tolerance is a Two-edged Sword: As has oft been stated, "you can be so open-minded that your brain falls out". Actually the more important problem for most countries is the intolerance of true believers. Aside from the slaughter caused by tyrants, much of the current slaughter, and that occurring over the centuries can be attributed to the intolerance of true believers. Because of this, we believe that international actions must be based on "natural law" which, while not necessarily simple, avoids the complexities and special interests of priesthoods. How to accomplish this might best be derived from the actions of the Romans, for as their influence and impact expanded, they developed the "natural law" concept of ius gentium (the law of nations). This concept permitted them to tolerate local customs and fostered the idea that there is a natural law or natural justice behind various national civil codes. Obviously there are more modern examples and if you are so inclined you **might start with the Finnish International Law Association at http://www.helsinki.fi/jarj/iusgentium/engframe1.html. The Finns have more reason than most to figure out how to get along in a hostile world and their web links are a good place to start.

Non-violence Has Limited Applicability with Tyrants: Non-violence as a political platform works when the governing order perceives themselves to be a just order as with the British over the Indians. That it does not work in tyrannical regimes has been proven in Nazi Germany and the many tyrannical nations since. To argue for non-violence and anti-war positions in dealing with tyrants is to argue for the continuation of oppression and slaughter. It is immoral under natural law. It is essentially a selfish, limited, selective, and erroneous reading of some religious prophets. It is prejudicial to establishment of a civilized world and to the duty of the strong to protect the weak.

Contact New Social Contract At
socrates@newsocialcontract.org