Equal Satisfaction (Early Brief Description)
What is Equal Satisfaction, in a nutshell?
Equal Satisfaction is a political/economic system under which no person in society is allowed to have a more satisfying life than another, unless the other person under no coercion wishes to have less. "Equality Courts" exist to allow less-satisfied people to get even with the more-satisfied. The result is a radically equal society.
How exactly do you define “Satisfaction”?
Suppose you think of all the things you appreciate in your life, e.g. job satisfaction, marriage, possessions etc. and attach a point value to each. Then you take all the things you don’t like in your life, e.g. frustrations, desire for specific things you don’t have etc. and attach a point value to each of these also. Subtracting the unsatisfying things from the satisfying things will give you your total level of Satisfaction at the current time.
How would “Equality Courts” work?
Any person may take any other to an Equality Court if they believe that person to have a greater level of Satisfaction than they do (and groups may take or be taken to court). If the jury judges that the balance of evidence favours this claim then the court will order the better off person to hand over the amount of things to the other that will make the two people even. These things might include goods, regular services, pleasant duties (or the better-off person will have to take on unpleasant duties). For practical reasons extreme low satisfaction caused by mental or physical illnesses or conditions will not be entirely compensated-for by the system.
Why is this better than our current society?
If this system works it will give everyone a satisfactory and dignified life. Many of the cruelties of our current lives will be eliminated - poverty, unemployment, marginalization, politicians, bosses, the stress of facing success or failure, and most of the restrictions on our freedom that we face in the workplace and in our studies. Instead, workers and students will be largely trusted to make the major decisions for themselves. Also we will have truly democratic society rather than the partly democratic, partly elitist society that we currently live in. This means that humanity’s future won’t be decided by most competitive people, selected by the cutthroat systems of politics or business - people focused on their own special interests e.g. sell the next barrel of oil or stay in power for the next four years.
So how does society work without leaders or experts?
Most workers will be part of a cooperative or a state agency. Major decisions in either sort of organization will usually be made by referendum of workers, while day-to-day choices will be made by frequently rotated management teams. So there will be no permanent managers. Experts will still exist, but those in sought-after fields will be forced to work in teams that are open to less skilled people, all sharing the “glory”. Facilitators will make sure that the more informed view is carried out. Also, roles that carry high responsibility will often be divided, e.g. there might be “aeroplane operators” steering planes under the orders of “flight facilitators”, advised by “flight expert teams” which contain those that know most about planes. As for politicians, in terms of proposing and voting to approve new laws they can be replaced by hundreds of juries of ordinary people (numbering thousands of people to be statistically representative of the population). Juries of ordinary people can also be assembled to make quick emergency decisions, replacing politicians in their executive roles.
With Equal Satisfaction guaranteed, why would anyone work?
If a person does little work and consumes a lot, then Equal Satisfaction means they will have to reduce their share of satisfaction by either increasing their work (as work is generally assumed to be a source of dissatisfaction) or reducing their consumption (as consumption is generally assumed to be satisfying). If this argument is accepted, Equal Satisfaction can still face the criticism that citizens have no incentive to endure productive dissatisfaction. For example, someone might satisfy the equality courts by lying on a bed of nails on a daily basis! However, I think people would prefer to do socially useful work. Given a choice between digging holes and filling them in again and digging holes that fulfill some purpose, most people would prefer the second option.
Wouldn’t people be taking each other to Equality Court all the time?
An Equality Inspectorate will exist to maintain day-to-day equality between citizens so that the Equality Courts can remain a last resort. Citizens may decide (or may not, as they choose) to be inspected as they go about their lives, by Equality Inspectors. If they are taken to the Equality Courts, inspectors will testify that they haven’t been living a more satisfying life than they claim to. It will therefore tend be the case that those who are submitting to inspections will not actually end up in the courts. Those who don’t want to be inspected may get taken to the Equality Courts on behalf of worse-off people by another set of people called Equality Prosecutors.
People’s lives being inspected? …..Sounds a bit Orwellian?
It is an admittedly greater infringement of privacy than we currently have. However, it is optional. If you aren’t living a highly satisfying life and have reliable witnesses to prove it then you don’t have to get yourself inspected. Those who choose to get inspected can choose their inspectors - some will work for a state agency, others independent co-operatives. They can also choose from two different inspection schemes. Option one is a “Random Inspection” system where one can be phoned at any time and must at that moment allow oneself to be visited by inspectors. This inspection would include a search of where you are (which might be your home) and interviews of people in the vicinity to establish what you are doing. Option two is “Satisfaction Points” - a system like money in our current society, coupled with occasional interviews of friends and colleagues to assess one’s life satisfaction level. So the second option isn’t really much more intrusive than in our current society.
Not everyone uses money in shops? How does the economy work?
As just mentioned, most people will be on one of two inspection schemes. Those on a Random Inspection system will not use money and will restrain their consumption due to fear of the inspections. Those on Satisfaction Points will lose points when they buy things. However it’s not like money in our current system. The points are destroyed and the shop doesn’t receive anything. Also, inspectors can set different prices for goods for different people. So an apple might cost me 10 satisfaction points and cost you 20 if your inspectors think that you find apples more satisfying.
So why are shops/shopkeepers doing what they do if they don’t get money from customers?
This goes back to the sixth question, above, about why anyone works. If people can’t “freeride”, getting the satisfaction of material things without doing the work, then I don’t see why most of them won’t be drawn towards doing productive things, e.g. running a shop. A shop would obviously not be run in a profit-oriented way, but towards meeting community needs or whatever aims those who work there have in mind.
Isn’t this Utopianism, a distraction from more achievable goals?
I agree that a radical system like this may be a long-shot and may also have unforeseen drawbacks. However, thinking about possibilities such as this system might at least inspire ideas or provoke thought. Also trying it out somewhere might be worth the effort as we can abandon the experiment at relatively little cost after a few years if things go badly, but if things work well it can be rolled out everywhere, benefiting millions.
What is Equal Satisfaction, in a nutshell?
Equal Satisfaction is a political/economic system under which no person in society is allowed to have a more satisfying life than another, unless the other person under no coercion wishes to have less. "Equality Courts" exist to allow less-satisfied people to get even with the more-satisfied. The result is a radically equal society.
How exactly do you define “Satisfaction”?
Suppose you think of all the things you appreciate in your life, e.g. job satisfaction, marriage, possessions etc. and attach a point value to each. Then you take all the things you don’t like in your life, e.g. frustrations, desire for specific things you don’t have etc. and attach a point value to each of these also. Subtracting the unsatisfying things from the satisfying things will give you your total level of Satisfaction at the current time.
How would “Equality Courts” work?
Any person may take any other to an Equality Court if they believe that person to have a greater level of Satisfaction than they do (and groups may take or be taken to court). If the jury judges that the balance of evidence favours this claim then the court will order the better off person to hand over the amount of things to the other that will make the two people even. These things might include goods, regular services, pleasant duties (or the better-off person will have to take on unpleasant duties). For practical reasons extreme low satisfaction caused by mental or physical illnesses or conditions will not be entirely compensated-for by the system.
Why is this better than our current society?
If this system works it will give everyone a satisfactory and dignified life. Many of the cruelties of our current lives will be eliminated - poverty, unemployment, marginalization, politicians, bosses, the stress of facing success or failure, and most of the restrictions on our freedom that we face in the workplace and in our studies. Instead, workers and students will be largely trusted to make the major decisions for themselves. Also we will have truly democratic society rather than the partly democratic, partly elitist society that we currently live in. This means that humanity’s future won’t be decided by most competitive people, selected by the cutthroat systems of politics or business - people focused on their own special interests e.g. sell the next barrel of oil or stay in power for the next four years.
So how does society work without leaders or experts?
Most workers will be part of a cooperative or a state agency. Major decisions in either sort of organization will usually be made by referendum of workers, while day-to-day choices will be made by frequently rotated management teams. So there will be no permanent managers. Experts will still exist, but those in sought-after fields will be forced to work in teams that are open to less skilled people, all sharing the “glory”. Facilitators will make sure that the more informed view is carried out. Also, roles that carry high responsibility will often be divided, e.g. there might be “aeroplane operators” steering planes under the orders of “flight facilitators”, advised by “flight expert teams” which contain those that know most about planes. As for politicians, in terms of proposing and voting to approve new laws they can be replaced by hundreds of juries of ordinary people (numbering thousands of people to be statistically representative of the population). Juries of ordinary people can also be assembled to make quick emergency decisions, replacing politicians in their executive roles.
With Equal Satisfaction guaranteed, why would anyone work?
If a person does little work and consumes a lot, then Equal Satisfaction means they will have to reduce their share of satisfaction by either increasing their work (as work is generally assumed to be a source of dissatisfaction) or reducing their consumption (as consumption is generally assumed to be satisfying). If this argument is accepted, Equal Satisfaction can still face the criticism that citizens have no incentive to endure productive dissatisfaction. For example, someone might satisfy the equality courts by lying on a bed of nails on a daily basis! However, I think people would prefer to do socially useful work. Given a choice between digging holes and filling them in again and digging holes that fulfill some purpose, most people would prefer the second option.
Wouldn’t people be taking each other to Equality Court all the time?
An Equality Inspectorate will exist to maintain day-to-day equality between citizens so that the Equality Courts can remain a last resort. Citizens may decide (or may not, as they choose) to be inspected as they go about their lives, by Equality Inspectors. If they are taken to the Equality Courts, inspectors will testify that they haven’t been living a more satisfying life than they claim to. It will therefore tend be the case that those who are submitting to inspections will not actually end up in the courts. Those who don’t want to be inspected may get taken to the Equality Courts on behalf of worse-off people by another set of people called Equality Prosecutors.
People’s lives being inspected? …..Sounds a bit Orwellian?
It is an admittedly greater infringement of privacy than we currently have. However, it is optional. If you aren’t living a highly satisfying life and have reliable witnesses to prove it then you don’t have to get yourself inspected. Those who choose to get inspected can choose their inspectors - some will work for a state agency, others independent co-operatives. They can also choose from two different inspection schemes. Option one is a “Random Inspection” system where one can be phoned at any time and must at that moment allow oneself to be visited by inspectors. This inspection would include a search of where you are (which might be your home) and interviews of people in the vicinity to establish what you are doing. Option two is “Satisfaction Points” - a system like money in our current society, coupled with occasional interviews of friends and colleagues to assess one’s life satisfaction level. So the second option isn’t really much more intrusive than in our current society.
Not everyone uses money in shops? How does the economy work?
As just mentioned, most people will be on one of two inspection schemes. Those on a Random Inspection system will not use money and will restrain their consumption due to fear of the inspections. Those on Satisfaction Points will lose points when they buy things. However it’s not like money in our current system. The points are destroyed and the shop doesn’t receive anything. Also, inspectors can set different prices for goods for different people. So an apple might cost me 10 satisfaction points and cost you 20 if your inspectors think that you find apples more satisfying.
So why are shops/shopkeepers doing what they do if they don’t get money from customers?
This goes back to the sixth question, above, about why anyone works. If people can’t “freeride”, getting the satisfaction of material things without doing the work, then I don’t see why most of them won’t be drawn towards doing productive things, e.g. running a shop. A shop would obviously not be run in a profit-oriented way, but towards meeting community needs or whatever aims those who work there have in mind.
Isn’t this Utopianism, a distraction from more achievable goals?
I agree that a radical system like this may be a long-shot and may also have unforeseen drawbacks. However, thinking about possibilities such as this system might at least inspire ideas or provoke thought. Also trying it out somewhere might be worth the effort as we can abandon the experiment at relatively little cost after a few years if things go badly, but if things work well it can be rolled out everywhere, benefiting millions.