How do we clearly define human sovereignty? Where is the line between personal freedom and the good of all drawn? I’m thinking mostly here about discrimination against others, treatment of minorities and genders, etc.
Let’s see how Copiosis deals with the tension that exists between personal freedom and the good of all.
We peg human sovereignty to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Personal freedom is absolute in Copiosis, so if you want to hurt another, you can. Doing something like that comes with some pretty bad repercussions, so presumably most people won’t go that far.
Those repercussions could be something like exile or public shunning—no one provides you with the necessaries you need to survive and no one is willing to give you luxuries, no matter how much net-benefit reward you have. Repercussions could be court-negotiated intensive programs that address the origin of your bad behavior; it could be anything.
Even if reparations are made, people still might not like you enough to want to have anything to do with you. They may not want to work with you or allow you to use their private property. In a nutshell, no matter what you may think about others, it makes sense to be kind.
That said, we have to acknowledge and accept that there are people who discriminate against other people and act in other unkind ways. In Copiosis people are free to be however they want. After all, this is humanity we’re talking about, and freedom includes all freedom. What does that mean in Copiosis?
A person may choose not to work with you, but who cares? In a society where earning a living is no longer necessary, bigots have no real power. If a grocery owner, for example, doesn’t allow ill-spoken people to patronize his store, something remarkable happens—any other grocery owner can earn more NBR serving the people the original owner doesn’t. More importantly, the original store owner, by making this decision, is shooting himself in the foot. Here’s why.
In Copiosis, NBR accrues partially as a result of something benefitting many people. The more people it benefits, the more NBR the person offering the thing earns. If you’re providing apples to that store owner, will you continue to do so if you realize he’s not offering apples to stutterers and people with lisps? My presumption is that you’re going to want that owner to provide your apples to as many people as possible. Would you continue providing your apples to that owner?
Someone might argue, for example, that a racist cabal could be set up whereby an entire network of racists could control large swaths of resources. They could use that control to harm those who belong to the group they don’t like. Some argue that racism works like this today. It’s hard to imagine such a thing happening in Copiosis.
Let’s say that, as the apple grower, you share the grocery owner’s views toward stutterers and people who lisp. You’re glad to provide him apples. If you own an orchard, it’s likely that you need others to help you manage the operation. Perhaps your family members could run the operation. You would still need people to provide fertilizers; maintain your vehicles and equipment; and provide materials, supplies, and parts, as well as other things such as pallets and crates. You would need people to pick and sort and package the apples.
If your operation is small, your family could manage most of these jobs. You could run your operation and hold your views, and perhaps ship your apples to the grocer, thereby allowing the grocer to discriminate. However, farms that generate large yields depend on teams larger than most families. Vast networks make farms (and other commercial operations) function. Today, there are people economically desperate enough to work for people who treat them terribly, who pay them poorly, and who are disrespectful to people and the environment in many ways, because they need the income.
With necessities provided to all at no cost, there is no economic desperation that comes with having to earn a living. The payer administration is responsible for distributing NBR, not employers. So the orchard owner can’t take advantage of people who need to earn a living as many such businesses do today. There are many ways people can earn NBR in Copiosis, and there are few reasons to continue working in a disagreeable place.
Today, many farm jobs are performed by cultural minorities. If the grocer’s intolerance were wide-spread enough—in Copiosis wide spread needn’t be very large—and the apple grower agreed with the grocer’s view, what power does the grower have to prevent people working with him from walking away and doing something else?
People who believe stutterers, people with lisps, obese people, or people with a different skin color deserve different treatment purely on those grounds are one thing. People who actually treat others from those perspectives are another and risk a lot. By replacing money with net benefit, Copiosis makes it clear that no one is an island. We all depend on one another not only to survive, but to thrive. You may believe stutterers deserve less than equal treatment. Treat them differently often enough and you’re going to have a problem.
Copiosis does make it possible for all the people who hate stutterers or people with lisps to form an enclave wherein they never have to encounter such a person. That’s not such a big deal and may even be beneficial. Having them all in one place may be a huge plus!
In short, the good of all is balanced with personal freedoms by net benefit and how it works. When everyone earns more by being nice and helping others and the planet, the world becomes a kinder place. Personal attitudes fade into the background. Stripped of the means to turn such attitudes into economic or political power, those specific attitudes, over time, become a thing of the past.