[munk-a]

I don't think you really can, we all live in a society and compromises need to be made for all of us to enjoy a moderate amount of freedom while not impinging on that of others. We don't currently live in a society that comes close to maximizing freedom for everyone (freedom of opportunity is denied to the majority of folks in the US and elsewhere) but I think we're on the right general path to eventually approach a Star Trek future.

I really appreciate parliamentary governments over the hot mess the US has - I think you get a lot better representation especially when no one party has a majority. If everyone is in a minority then you have consensus through coalitions of different fractions and it gets a lot closer to each skinny slice of the nation getting a legitimate say. The more slices you have the better your representation of the public will (up to, ultimately, true popular democracy) but as a society we probably want either majority or strong majority decisions to guide us and that's just conceptually incompatible with no one getting their free-will stomped on.

This hits a really deep point on the topic of freedom - I have the right to not be murdered, but that right comes at the cost of anyone who wants to murder me... restrictions of rights are necessary for greater general societal rights.

[chordalkeyboard]

Thanks for the reply. What is the minimum viable ruleset for a sustainable community? Does that ruleset change with technology?

[munk-a]

I don't know the minimum viable ruleset that we'd all find acceptable but it's an ethical question that changes over time with societal ethics. We value different violations with different levels of punishment - if we were living in madmax times then maybe rules around water sharing and preservation would be chief among folks.

That ruleset does change with technology on a functional level (murder with a gun when guns don't exist is a non-issue) I don't think there is a particularly interesting relationship with technology though - it's more just an extension of existing rules to platforms.

One thing that might counter that is doxing though - this is a pretty new phenomena that was pretty inconceivable when the world moved slower and humans were more directly involved with communication handling. I think you have the right to not be doxed but I don't think that right clearly translates to any pre-internet rights - it might be an implied right (but unstated or considered due to the infeasibility) but it is a pretty good example of a more novel rule for a sustainable community... that said we're still societally new to the internet so maybe it eventually won't be a rule and we'll find that doxing was an unfortunate emergent behavior of some integrated systems that really shouldn't have been integrated.