I want to examine the differences in how things flow in various societal structures. I chose the relatively benign notion of the question of having everyOne wear black on Thursdays. Let Me begin:

In a monarchy, the decree-er can say, “You all will wear black on Thursdays.” Those who believe either that the decree-er has the right to make that choice for Them or have good reason to believe They will be bullied if They don’t comply choose to wear black every Thursday. There is a decree, and it’s never called a Law, but it can be called an “ordinance,” or a “rule,” or other label. And many speak of it as a “law.”

In a plural archy, the decree-ers discuss the decrees that go out, and if They say, “Black on Thursday! It’s a go!” then again, Those who believe and Those with fear choose to wear black once a week. And again, the decree goes out as a “command” or a “statute” or some such.

In a democracy, the idea is put to a vote, and if the majority say that black will be worn on Thursday, then One had better wear black on Thursday or else someOne will bully You! A “bill” or “code” or “regulation” issues forth, and Your neighbor will turn You in if You are seen in green.

In a solutocracy, the question would be asked, “What problem is the color any One is wearing on a specific day creating?” That might follow, if such a case existed that not wearing black on Thursdays was a problem, with the question, “Is this a case that an Ethical solution can be found for?” No preset “court” exists, but that info can be offered regarding problems, and all who care may solve for the problem Ethically.

Clearly, no One is going be forced, by fear, to wear black at all, let alone making a ritual of it. But to any who believe that is a good idea – They may wear black as it suits Them. Individual freedom is retained to the highest degree in a solutocracy.

We all know of a case (or many) where the “letter of the law” created a rude miscarriage of justice, and in a solutocracy problems are solved for, Ethically (Lawfully), case by case. We all may add Our voice as judge on any matter of the three Laws of Ethics, whether it be in an initial crime or unEthical punishment. We all may offer evidence if We have any. We don’t fret possible problems in the future, but solve for each problem as it arises.

Let’s get more controversial – the issue of cannabis. In all cases of Some having “say-so,” freedom is very limited. Clearly, with tens of millions regularly partaking every day, We aren’t seeing much in the way of problems in its use. Nothing to solve for there. We see problems arise because of any money involved – but in the best environment for a solutocracy to function, money is removed (free energy=no need for money – see My piece in The Abundance Paradigm Foundational Writings). We see problems arising from Some following orders to bully People that use it. Since, in a solutocracy, We don’t bully People who are not choosing to create problems/behave unEthically, the bully problems do not arise. Where there are problems, Those who care will solve the problems by Ethical consensus. (Serious problems will spread like wildfire over the web…)

What defines “Ethical?” Though embracing principles in a wider scope, the foundation rests in the three Laws of Ethics (also called Common Law):

1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage the property of anOther
3. Do not defraud (which can only happen without fully informed consent)

In solving problems, therefore, no solution is acceptable that breaks these three Laws. Killing someOne is not an acceptable solution. Starving someOne is equally not acceptable. But confining Them, taking Them out of social circulation, is.

Needless to say, I advocate for a solutocracy, as it supports fully the principles We are told the corporation, THE UNITED STATES, masquerading as “Our” controlmind, says it stands for (lying, completely): freedom, justice, and pursuit of happiness.

A question I ask is whether We support principles or pieces of paper. Do We want a system that supports force and unEthical solutions? Or do We want to build something that will give Us the freedom that so Many give lip service to?

If You want freedom in an Ethical society, please share this with Many. Also check out the rest of My blog here.

NOTE:  In reading that over I realized that I failed to distinguish between what equates to the legal system We have today from handling things in protection of Self and Others. Though such defense has a component of will in it, it is reactionary in its root, and if the only solution to the impending death of non-consenting Individuals is to kill the one(s) inflicting the harm, then that is an Ethical choice.