The Moral Social Contract in brief....
ultimate authority in each and every human individual equally. Therefore,
the standardized "contract" between or among two or more individuals need
not be moral and only can be if they agree to institute and abide
by that which commonly forms to explain and enable their individual
differences first within the geopolitical borders of a nation-state.
||Not all individuals even can so institute and abide.
Those who can equally are the enfranchisable, and politically
they'd have custody of the second where and when both humanly form commonly
to be primary human characteristics. That second, the unenfranchisable,
are our children and those nominal "adults" who for whatever reason are
incapable of governing even their own behavior rationally- much less with
moral knowledge or accountability. Morally therefore, the first
bear custodial responsibility politically for the welfare of the second.
That duty equally includes all of them, and it extends to open the possibility
of their wards' equal opportunity to achieve positive life options
even beyond their preeminent rights to survival and prospects for achieving
first right and duty of those within the natural or adoptive family to
assure this is presumptive, but the standardized word-concept of the "family"
joins still others which don't refer to interest groups politically having
institutional authority morally at all. All form humanly to be from secondary human characteristics where and when standardized "race," "ethnicity,"
"age, "gender," "religion," "nationality" and "ideology" denote others.
Therefore, each member of these groups would have a fully-optioned right
to combine with others privately within them, but not politically to impose
his or her beliefs in and through them.
each individual ultimately has greatest moral and rational authority even
before he or she socially does contract with others, even his or her morally-contracted
authority equally as shared within it has a social referent of two politically-divisible
parts. One standardizes a "private sector" which, like the individual
privately himself or herself, also has political authority- be it truly
of a "free" enterprize and trade or not. The other is a public sector,
and its custodians would set the moral example inclusively within the nation-state's
geopolitical borders even while a politically-compliant and itself-political
private sector both would follow and- economically only- also lead.
enfranchisable individual ultimately would lead within both sectors, and
he or she would do so both privately and politically by example. Though
privately it also is her or his fully-optioned, private right not to participate
politically, the public-sector opportunity for his or her democratically-direct
and equal involvement would standardize within a moral social contract.
Only then would and could a truly "moral majority" domestically present
a socially-moral example to the rest of us who aren't within those moral
||Only then could they standardize to be a "nation"
of individuals whose collective essence morally forms and politically founds
within a geographically-identifiable "state." Still, that they'd have to
morally defend those borders domestically and internationally from
those who'd not respect them poses yet another threat....