【文章】Jon Guerin - Foundations of a Free Society (1/N)

連結

• 文章 - newdiscourses.com/20...

原文及個人翻譯

Introduction / 介紹

Currently, the notion of freedom is universally praised and considered morally good. Thus, even societies which apply enormous amounts of force claim to be the true champions of freedom even though others see them as authoritarian.1 Such a claim is possible because in any society there is always a need to apply coercion and force against individuals whether it is performed by government, associations, or other individuals. In order to determine the nature of freedom in contrast to authoritarianism, one key question to answer is when and how the application of coercion and force is justified. A free society justly applies force and coercion while an authoritarian society does not. Straight forward answers on how to organize society, such as anarchy or direct democracy, lead to paradoxes and authoritarianism. A more detailed examination of human nature and morality is required to have a foundation for a free society without any paradoxes.

目前，自由的理念在全世界都受到讚揚，並且被認為是道德上好的。因此，即使是那些運用巨大力量的社會，也聲稱自己是真正的自由捍衛者，儘管其他人將其視為專制統治。 這種說法之所以可行，是因為在任何社會中，總是需要對個人施加強制和武力，無論是由政府、協會或其他個人執行。為了確定自由與專制之間的關係，一個關鍵的問題是：何時以及如何才能合理地使用強制和武力？一個自由的社會會公正地運用武力和強制，而一個專制的社會則不會。 關於如何組織社會的簡單答案，例如無政府主義或直接民主，往往會導致悖論和專制。為了建立一個沒有任何悖論的自由社會，需要對人類本性和道德進行更深入的研究。

In nature there is both cooperation and competition. It is not a war of all against all, and it is not a harmony of all beings living in peace.2 The purpose and meaning of nature distinguishes beauty and harmony from ugliness and discord. For humanity, nature is not a mere scenic lookout. It is not something separate to be left alone and isolated from. Humanity is a part of nature with a purpose. The default state of nature is poverty. Along with the rest of nature, individuals engage in both cooperation and competition to lift themselves out of poverty and towards beauty and harmony. Individuals have agency to make moral decisions. There are many different beautiful songs and many different ways to live a beautiful, moral life in alignment with nature. Thus, competition is expected. It is natural and moral to both compete and cooperate. The notion of forming a society of free individuals based on human nature, including basic morality, became prominent at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th century.

在自然界中，既有合作也有競爭。它並非「人人為寇」，也不是所有生物和諧共存的狀態。自然的目的是區分美與和諧，以及醜陋與不協調。對於人類而言，自然不僅僅是一個風景名勝。它不是一個可以被遺棄和孤立的東西。人類是自然的一部分，具有目的性。自然的初始狀態是貧困。與其他生物一樣，個體既會合作也會競爭，以擺脫貧困，並朝向美與和諧發展。個體擁有自主權來做出道德決策。存在許多不同的美好樂章，以及許多不同方式可以過著符合自然、充滿美德的生活。因此，競爭是預期的。既競爭又合作是自然的也是道德的。在17世紀啟蒙時代初期，基於人類本性（包括基本道德）的自由個體社會的概念開始興起。

The ideas of Classical Liberalism (as it is called today) were developed to support a free society.3 Classical Liberalism covers a wide range of ideas and thinkers between the 17th and 19th centuries with competing views of human nature and different conceptions of a free society. The United States was founded on one of the best foundations for a free society known as the Common Sense Realism school of philosophy from the Scottish Enlightenment.4 Here, “common sense” refers to the human ability to immediately sense the world. When combined with the ability to reason and communicate, this allows for humans to have a self-evident, shared understanding of a portion of reality. This shared understanding of reality includes a portion of objective morality knowable through human common sense which are the values of life, individual agency, family, private property, honesty, and duty. Of course, this notion of human nature does not mean all individuals have the same exact experience and understanding of the physical world and morality. For example, some individuals are born blind. The idea is that human nature includes the ability, to a certain extent, to have a common understanding of reality (including morality) that is self-evident. Thus, the foundation of a free society is where independent individuals cooperate together based on self-evident principles of reality, including basic morality. On top of this foundation, individuals are free to practice their religion, form associations, and live their lives. It is a society where individuals build a virtuous life of their own accord that is consistent with nature (including morality) as opposed to a society where individuals do whatever they please.

古典自由主義（如今日所稱）的理念是為了支持一個自由社會而發展起來的。在17世紀和19世紀之間，古典自由主義涵蓋了廣泛的思想和思想家，他們對人類本性的看法各不相同，並且對自由社會有不同的概念。美國建立在一個最適合自由社會的基礎之上，即來自蘇格蘭啟蒙時代的「常識現實主義」哲學流派。在這裡，「常識」指的是人類立即感知世界的能力。當這種能力與推理和溝通的能力結合時，就使人類能夠對現實的一部分形成一種明顯且共同的理解。這種對現實的共同理解包括一部分客觀道德，這些道德可以通過人類的常識來了解，例如生命、個體自主性、家庭、私有財產、誠實和責任等價值觀。當然，這種關於人類本性的概念並不意味著所有個體都擁有完全相同的物理世界和道德體驗與理解。例如，有些人天生失明。這個想法是，人類的本性包括在一定程度上，能夠對現實（包括道德）形成一種共同的、顯而易見的理解。因此，自由社會的基礎是獨立的個體基於對現實的顯而易見的原則（包括基本道德）進行合作。在此基礎之上，個人可以自由地信奉自己的宗教、組建協會以及過著自己想要的生活。這是一個讓個體自願建立符合自然（包括道德）的美德生活的社會，而不是一個讓個體隨心所欲的社會。

In this paper, the term “authoritarianism” is used in the broadest sense of the word to refer to all manner of unjust societies and unjust practices. An unjust society or practice goes against nature and objective morality. For example, an authoritarian society can have rulers who grant permission and limited choice[s] to individuals from an arbitrary basis.  Authoritarians unjustly use coercion or force while falsely claiming to act morally in the name of the “common good” or “social justice”. Instead of grand, all-encompassing notions of a common good that require everyone to believe the same thing or at least feign belief, a free society relies on only the most fundamental, undeniable, self-evident truths.

This paper examines Common Sense Realism as the foundation for a free society as well as how it resolves paradoxes found in other approaches. Building on this foundation, other aspects of a free society are examined including individual rights, associations, conflict resolution, government, international relations, and subversion.

在本文中，「專制主義」一詞被廣泛地使用，指的是各種不公正的社會和不公正的做法。一個不公正的社會或做法違背自然和客觀道德。例如，一個專制社會可能擁有根據任意理由授予個人許可和有限選擇的統治者。 專制者會不正當地使用脅迫或武力，同時虛偽地聲稱他們是以「共同利益」或「社會正義」的名義行事。與那些需要每個人相信相同的事情或至少假裝相信的宏大、包羅萬象的「共同利益」概念不同，一個自由社會只依賴最基本、不可否認、顯而易見的事實。

本文探討了「常識現實主義」作為自由社會的基礎，以及它如何解決其他方法中發現的悖論。在此基礎之上，還研究了自由社會的其他方面，包括個人權利、協會、衝突解決、政府、國際關係和顛覆。

1. Paradoxes / 悖論

Some conceptions of a free society lead to paradoxes. Karl Popper discusses several related paradoxes in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies.

• Paradox of Freedom: “The so-called paradox of freedom is the well-known idea that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek.”5

• Paradox of Tolerance: “Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”6

• Paradox of Democracy: “Another of the less well-known paradoxes is the paradox of democracy, or more precisely, of majority rule; i.e. the possibility that the majority may decide that a tyrant should rule.”7

一些關於自由社會的觀念會導致悖論。卡爾·波普在他的著作《開放社會及其敵人》中討論了幾個相關的悖論。

• 自由悖論：「所謂的自由悖論是廣為人知的觀點，即缺乏任何約束控制的自由必然導致極大的限制，因為它使欺凌者可以自由地奴役弱者。」

• 寬容悖論：「不太出名的另一個悖論是寬容悖論：無限制的寬容必然導致寬容的消失。如果我們對那些不寬容的人也採取無限制的寬容，如果我們沒有準備好捍衛一個寬容的社會免受不寬容者的攻擊，那麼寬容者就會被摧毀，以及他們所珍視的寬容。」

• 民主悖論：「不太出名的另一個悖論是民主悖論，或者更準確地說，是多數決悖論；即有可能發生這樣的情況：多數人決定讓暴君統治。」

Popper attempts to resolve the paradoxes by holding tolerance itself as a foundational principle. “We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public.”8

However, this proves to be a weak defense since tolerance is the result of holding other more fundamental principles of basic morality. Thus, authoritarians, such as communists and socialists, have undermined notions of tolerance and democracy to attack individual freedom. In his essay “Repressive Tolerance”, Herbert Marcuse accepted Popper’s claim that “tolerance is an end in itself.”9 From there he used different underlying principles to create different notions of tolerance. He created repressive tolerance and liberating tolerance to justify revolution against individual rights in support of authoritarianism: “Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right — these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance.”10

波普試圖通過將寬容本身視為一個基本原則來解決這些悖論。「我們要求一個政府，它根據平等主義和保護主義的原則統治；它寬容所有那些願意相互寬容的人，也就是說，那些具有寬容精神的人；並且這個政府受到公眾的控制，並對公眾負責。」

然而，這證明是一種薄弱的防禦，因為寬容是基於其他更根本的基本道德原則的結果。因此，像共產主義者和社會主義者這樣的專制主義者，已經破壞了寬容和民主的概念，以攻擊個人自由。在赫伯特·馬克塞的論文《壓迫性寬容》中，他接受了波普的觀點：「寬容是一種目的本身」。從那時起，他使用不同的基本原則來創造不同的寬容概念。他創造了壓迫性寬容和解放性寬容，以證明革命可以支持專制主義，從而攻擊個人權利：「在那些倒退運動變得活躍之前，就撤回對它們的寬容；即使是對思想、意見和言論的不寬容，最後，是朝著相反的方向不寬容，也就是對自封的保守派、對政治右翼——這些反民主的概念反映了民主社會的實際發展，而這種發展已經摧毀了普遍寬容的基础。」

Common Sense Realism resolves the paradoxes Popper identified as opposed to holding tolerance as a foundational principal as Popper suggested. Tolerance in and of itself is not a virtue. For example, tolerance was not considered an explicit ancient Greek virtue11 or a Christian virtue.12 Common Sense Realism holds that objective reality, including basic morality, is directly knowable through human senses and reasoning.

The paradox of freedom is resolved by Common Sense Realism since it provides moral constraints on individual freedom.13 People are not free to do whatever they please. For example, people enslaving the meek violates basic morality. Common Sense Realism also resolves the paradox of tolerance. The reality of individual agency, meaning a person initiates their own actions,14 along with the reality of basic moral truths results in tolerance with limited, objective boundaries. These boundaries are not pragmatic or arbitrary. In other words, tolerance doesn’t provide understanding or moral guidance. Instead, objective reality and moral truths justly outline what is and is not tolerated. Finally, the paradox of democracy is resolved, because Common Sense Realism is not based on consensus or the outcome of a democratic process. It is not whatever is most commonly believed or agreed to. Common Sense Realism calls for individual responsibility that can’t be voted on or given away to a tyrant.

「常識現實主義」解決了波普所指出的悖論，而不是像波普建議的那樣，將寬容作為一個基本原則。寬容本身並不是一種美德。例如，在古希臘或基督教中，寬容並未被明確地視為一種美德。「常識現實主義」認為，客觀現實（包括基本的道德），可以直接通過人類的感官和推理來了解。

「常識現實主義」解決了自由悖論，因為它為個人自由提供了道德約束。人們並非可以隨心所欲地做任何事情。例如，奴役弱者違反了基本道德。 「常識現實主義」也解決了寬容的悖論。個體自主性的現實（即一個人會主動採取行動）以及基本道德真理的現實，導致了具有有限和客觀界限的寬容。這些界限並非實用或任意的。換句話說，寬容並不能提供理解或道德指導。相反，客觀現實和道德真理公正地闡述了哪些是可以接受的，哪些是不可以接受的。最後，「常識現實主義」解決了民主悖論，因為它不是基於共識或民主過程的結果。它並非是大多數人所相信或同意的事情。 「常識現實主義」要求個人承擔責任，而這種責任不能通過投票來決定或授予暴君。

2. Common Sense Realism / 常識現實主義

When Common Sense Realism is applied in education, in other institutions, and by individuals, the result is limited tolerance and a free society. The foundational principles of Common Sense Realism cover the broad areas of reality, human understanding, and basic morality. In general, separate individuals have their own consciousness and agency. Everyone has limited and imperfect knowledge, and everyone acts using their own reason in accordance with objective moral truths. Actions are guided by universal moral values of life, individual agency, family, private property, honesty, and duty. This is limited tolerance. In this usage, common sense does not mean a consensus or majority opinion, it refers to literal human senses and reasoning capabilities common to the human experience.

當「常識現實主義」應用於教育、其他機構以及個人時，結果是有限的寬容和一個自由社會。「常識現實主義」的基本原則涵蓋了現實、人類理解和基本道德等廣泛領域。 一般來說，不同的個體擁有自己的意識和自主性。 每個人都有有限且不完善的知識，並且每個人都根據客觀的道德真理運用自己的理性進行行動。 行動受到普遍道德價值觀的指導，這些價值觀包括生命、個人自主性、家庭、私有財產、誠實和責任。 這就是有限的寬容。 在這種用法中，「常識」並不意味著共識或多數意見，而是指人類經驗中常見的字面意義的人類感官和推理能力。

Common Sense Realism is not a complete worldview or religion. It values the individual as more important than the collective. It values a free society of individuals instead of a collective society controlled by authoritarians. Thus, within a free society there can be several religions as long as they are compatible with Common Sense Realism. Here religion is used in the broadest sense of the term to include world religions, spiritual practices, ideologies, worldviews, and even individual beliefs. In this sense, limits are placed on religious freedom, namely that it must be compatible with reality (including basic morality). This also allows for several different free societies all based on Common Sense Realism. The fundamentals of reality, including basic morality, is understandable by every individual without the need for experts or rulers and regardless of religious belief. A free society is held together through a recognition and ardent support of universal human common sense. In addition to Common Sense Realism, individuals have their own specific cultural and religious practices. A free society makes a distinction between fundamental reality (including basic morality) and specific cultures and religions. Whenever there is a dispute, individuals may appeal to universal human experience and basic morality, which is understandable by everyone.

「常識現實主義」並不是一個完整的世界觀或宗教。它認為個人比集體更重要。 它重視由個體組成的自由社會，而不是由專制者控制的集體社會。 因此，在一個自由社會中，可以存在多種宗教，只要它們與「常識現實主義」相容即可。「宗教」在此處被廣泛地理解，包括世界宗教、精神實踐、意識形態、世界觀，甚至個人信仰。 在這種意義上，對宗教自由施加了限制，即它必須與現實（包括基本道德）相容。 這也允許建立幾個不同的自由社會，它們都基於「常識現實主義」。 關於現實的基本原則（包括基本道德），每個個體都可以理解，而無需專家或統治者的幫助，並且無論宗教信仰如何。「自由社會」通過對普遍人類常識的認識和熱情支持而保持團結。 除了「常識現實主義」之外，個人還有自己的特定文化和宗教習俗。 自由社會區分了基本現實（包括基本道德）和特定的文化和宗教。 當發生爭議時，個人可以訴諸普遍的人類經驗和基本道德，這對每個人來說都是可以理解的。

In contrast, authoritarians want a complete worldview to dominate society such as a single culture, ideology, or religion. If they recognize universal basic reality at all, it has a lower precedent than the dominant worldview. Authoritarians ignore reality when it is useful for them to do so. Individuals in an authoritarian society have no recourse or appeal to universal human experience and basic morality. The rulers of society grant limited freedom to individuals, cultures, and religions as they see fit. Authoritarians dismiss Common Sense Realism or claim it is not strong enough to hold society together. Authoritarians rule on an arbitrary, pragmatic basis.

A free society of independent individuals requires adherence to basic principles from each area of reality, human understanding, and basic morality. This forms a strong foundation for a society while not prescribing a complete, singular worldview or religion. The following sections discuss each area in more detail as well as how authoritarians attack those principles.

與之相反，專制者希望一個完整的世界觀主導社會，例如單一文化、意識形態或宗教。 如果他們承認普遍的基本現實，那麼它在重要性上遠不如佔主導地位的世界觀。 當對他們有利時，專制者會忽視現實。 在一個專制社會中，個體沒有任何途徑或方法可以訴諸普遍的人類經驗和基本道德。 社會的統治者根據自己的意願，有限地授予個人、文化和宗教自由。 專制者會駁斥「常識現實主義」，或者聲稱它不足以維持社會的穩定。 專制者是基於隨意和務實的原則來統治的。

一個由獨立個體組成的自由社會需要每個領域都遵守基本原則，這些領域包括現實、人類理解和基本道德。 這為社會奠定了堅實的基礎，同時沒有規定一個完整的、單一的世界觀或宗教。 以下各節將更詳細地討論每個領域，以及專制者如何攻擊這些原則。

2.1 Reality / 現實

According to Common Sense Realism, there is an objective external reality which contains separate human individuals. Reality has an existing structure which includes meaning and morality. Each individual has their own independent consciousness and agency to act in the world. Individuals are a part of reality and the world. Moreover, there is a fixed human condition.15 This does not prescribe a specific theory of physics or exact details of the universe. This recognizes that individuals have their own independent thoughts and consciousness as well as the ability to act in the world that has structure, meaning, and morality.

Authoritarians argue against this view of reality in different ways. One way is to assert that humanity is primarily a global collective, a species-being, where humans are part of the larger whole of humanity. They argue the collective is more important than the individual. Agency should be dominated by collective agency and the need for collective well being.16 Of course, collective agency is simply what the authoritarians decide. A second way is to hold the nature of reality is formless and shaped by our thoughts.17 Reality does not have structure, meaning, or morality independent of human consciousness. Thus, if authoritarians can change the consciousness of everyone, then reality itself is changed. A third way is to claim that human nature is not universal, but that humans can change the nature of what it means to be human. Humans can consciously direct evolution to evolve humanity into a new species that is no longer human. In this case, individual freedom can’t be allowed to stop human progress from advancing the species itself.18 A fourth way is that the question of reality should be ignored altogether. Power is all that matters.19 From there, well anything goes.

根據「常識現實主義」，存在一個客觀的外部現實，其中包含獨立的人類個體。 現實具有現有的結構，包括意義和道德。 每個個體都有自己的獨立意識和自主性，可以在世界上行動。 個體是現實世界的一部分。 此外，還存在一種固定的人類狀況。這並不規定特定的物理理論或宇宙的精確細節。 它認識到個體擁有獨立的思想和意識，以及在具有結構、意義和道德的世界中採取行動的能力。

專制者以不同的方式反駁這種現實觀。 一種方法是斷言人類主要是全球集體，一種物種存在，其中人類是更大的人類整體的一部分。 他們認為集體比個人更重要。 個體的自主性應該受到集體自主性的支配，以及對集體福祉的需求。當然，集體自主性只是專制者所決定的。 另一種方法是認為現實的本質是無形的，並且由我們的思想塑造。現實沒有獨立於人類意識的結構、意義或道德。 因此，如果專制者能夠改變每個人的意識，那麼現實本身就會發生變化。 第三種方式是聲稱人類的本質不是普遍的，而是人類可以改變成為人類意味著什麼。 人類可以通過有意識地引導進化，使人類進化成一種不再是人類的新物種。 在這種情況下，不能允許個人自由阻止人類進步來發展物種本身。 第四種方法是認為關於現實的問題應該完全被忽略。 權力就是一切。從那以後，一切皆有可能。

2.2 Human Understanding / 人類理解

According to Common Sense Realism, humans discover objective reality, including basic morality, through their senses and reason.20 This includes both moral and physical senses. However, human knowledge is imperfect and will always be imperfect. Thus, humans have a fallible knowledge that corresponds directly to objective reality. Importantly, this includes the ability for humans to determine what things are closer to objective reality than others.

Authoritarians argue against this view of human understanding in different ways. One way is to argue it’s not possible to know moral facts. It’s possible to know things about the physical world such as predicting when Hailey’s comet will appear in the sky, but it is impossible to know moral truths. There’s no way to know that murder, rape, fraud, etc. is objectively wrong.21 Similarly, another way is to argue that moral facts can only be known through the one correct religion. There is no universal or human sense of morality, it only comes from divine revelation, from the one true religion. Thus, society can’t allow individual freedom, and society must be based on the one true religion. Another way is to argue human knowledge is subjective even though reality may be objective. It’s not possible to know if one thing is closer to reality than another thing. Human understanding is all completely subjective. This is where cultural relativism and extreme forms of multi-culturalism come from. There is no way to judge one culture or behavior as better than another.22 This is also where scientific paradigm shifts come from. Science is just whatever the latest paradigm all the experts are following, and it will shift arbitrarily over time.23 Thus, there is no way to approximate moral truths or any universal truth that corresponds to objective reality. In short, some authoritarians claim there is no common, universal shared understanding of morality and reality.

根據「常識現實主義」，人類通過他們的感官和理性來發現客觀的現實，包括基本的道德。這包括道德和物理感官。 然而，人類的知識是不完美的，並且永遠是這樣。 因此，人類擁有不完美的知識，該知識直接與客觀現實相符。 重要的是，這包括人類判斷哪些事物更接近客觀現實的能力。

專制者以不同的方式反駁這種關於人類理解的觀點。 一種方法是認為不可能瞭解道德事實。 雖然有可能瞭解物理世界的事物，例如預測哈雷彗星何時出現在天空，但不可能瞭解道德真理。 沒有辦法知道謀殺、強姦、欺詐等行為在客觀上是不對的。類似地，另一種方法是認為只有通過唯一正確的宗教才能瞭解道德事實。 不存在普遍或人類的道德感，它只來自神啟，來自唯一的真理宗教。 因此，社會不能允許個人自由，社會必須建立在唯一的真理宗教之上。 另一種方式是認為即使現實可能是客觀的，人類的知識也是主觀的。 不可能知道一件事情是否比另一件事情更接近現實。 人類理解完全是主觀的。 這就是文化相對主義和極端多元文化的來源。 沒有辦法判斷一種文化或行為比另一種更好。這也是科學範式轉變的來源。 科學只是所有專家遵循的最新範例，並且它會隨著時間的推移任意變化。因此，沒有辦法逼近道德真理或任何與客觀現實相對應的普遍真理。 總之，一些專制者聲稱不存在關於道德和現實的共同、普遍的共享理解。

2.3 Morality / 道德

According to Common Sense Realism, each individual has agency to act in this world according to universal, objective morality. A subset of morality, a basic morality, is directly accessible through human senses and reasoning. It is always best for people to understand morality on their own and act morally of their own accord. Independence is a moral good, so generally speaking people are not forced or coerced into acting morally. However, force or coercion is justified in some cases. Moreover, people have imperfect knowledge, and there are many different ways to act morally. Taking action to force or coerce people is not be done lightly and has its own considerations.

Basic morality from common sense is limited in scope, and individuals expand on this further with religious beliefs and practices (again in the broadest sense of the term religious). Basic morality is grounded in direct, visceral senses of objective morality that are part of human nature and built on with reason. From the literature on Common Sense Realism, there are six values of basic morality: life, individual agency, family, private property, honesty, and duty.

根據「常識現實主義」，每個個體都有權利按照普遍、客觀的道德規範在世界上行動。 道德的一個子集，即基本的道德，可以直接通過人類的感官和理性來理解。 通常情況下，最好讓人們自己去理解道德並自願地採取道德行動。 獨立是一種道德美德，因此通常情況下，人們不會被強制或脅迫去採取道德行動。 然而，在某些情況下，使用武力或脅迫是合理的。 此外，人們的知識是不完美的，並且有很多不同的方法可以採取道德行動。 不應輕易採取強制或脅迫他人的行動，並且需要考慮其他因素。

常識中的基本道德範圍有限，個人會通過宗教信仰和實踐（再次以「宗教」一詞最廣泛的意義）進一步擴展這些內容。 基本道德基於直接、直觀的客觀道德感，這是人類本性的組成部分，並在此基礎上進行推理。 根據「常識現實主義」的研究文獻，基本道德有六個價值觀：生命、個人自主性、家庭、私有財產、誠實和責任。

The first value is life. Each individual human life is sacred, a blessing, and to be preserved. Each individual has a right to security. No individual inherently deserves to be killed or be harmed.24 The second value is individual agency. Each individual has their own agency and is capable of thought, communication, movement, and behavior of their own accord.25 No individual inherently deserves to be enslaved or imprisoned. The third value is family. Parents have the sole responsibility to raise their children until they reach adulthood. This includes providing nutrition and education for their children.26 The fourth value is private property. Private property is when an individual controls how resources are used along with the ability to transfer control of their resources to someone else. This is necessary for individuals to remain independent and utilize their agency to act in the world. Individuals are responsible for their property including maintenance and improvements. Individuals have the ability to acquire property and transact in order to improve their life and that of society.27 The fifth value is honesty. It is human nature to live together in a society with multiple individuals that rely on each other. This fundamentally requires honesty to coordinate behavior and communicate reality.28 No individual inherently deserves to be manipulated or deceived. Finally, the sixth value is duty. Each individual has an obligation to act morally and to improve their understanding of morality through experience and reason.29 Moral excellence is the measure of a man.30

第一個價值觀是生命。 每一個人的生命都是神聖的、是恩賜，應該得到保護。 每個人都有安全權利。 沒有人天生就應該被殺害或受到傷害。第二個價值觀是個人自主性。 每個個體都擁有自己的自主性，並且能夠思考、交流、移動和按照自己的意願採取行動。沒有人天生就應該被奴役或監禁。 第三個價值觀是家庭。 父母有獨自的責任要撫養孩子直到他們成年。 這包括為他們的子女提供營養和教育。第四個價值觀是私有財產。 私有財產是指個人控制資源的使用，以及將其資源的控制權轉移給他人的能力。 這對於個人保持獨立並利用他們的自主性在世界上行動至關重要。 個人對自己的財產負有責任，包括維護和改進。 個人有權獲得財產並進行交易，以改善自己和他人的生活。第五個價值觀是誠實。 人類天生就生活在一個由多個人組成的社會中，這些人相互依賴。 這從根本上需要誠實來協調行為和傳達現實。沒有人天生就應該被操縱或欺騙。 最後，第六個價值觀是責任。 每個個體都有義務採取道德行動，並且通過經驗和理性來提高他們對道德的理解。道德卓越是衡量一個人的標準。

Authoritarians argue against this view of morality in different ways. One way is to claim the human condition is not universally the same for everyone.31 That some people are inherently better, so much so, as to deserve more power and freedom than others. They argue that people of a certain race, genetics, intellect, or class are inherently superior to other people almost as if they are a different species. Thus, other people are considered sub-human, cockroaches, untouchable, etc. A second way is to not value individual agency. It is ok to force or coerce people to do what is in their own best interest or societies’ best interest as determined by authoritarians. Science and ethics keep advancing and everyone should follow the best practices according to the best human knowledge laid out by the experts who are approved by authoritarians. Individuals can not choose their experts or think for themselves.32 Sometimes this is additionally justified with a utilitarian or consequentialist ethic where the authoritarians calculate the greatest good for the greatest number based on their metrics and measurements.33 When the science is settled by the authoritarians, people must be forced or coerced into compliance. A similar approach is to claim everyone must follow the one true religion (in the broadest sense of the term) practiced by authoritarians. Whether it is science that becomes dogmatic or a religion that becomes dogmatic, there is no room for individual agency. They argue people can’t be free to make the wrong choices to hurt themselves or society. Authoritarians claim individual freedom can not be allowed in order to ensure peace and prosperity.

專制者以不同的方式反駁這種關於道德的觀點。 一種方法是聲稱人類的處境並非對每個人都相同。有些人天生就比其他人更好，甚至好到可以擁有更多的權力和自由。 他們認為某些種族、基因、智力或階級的人天生優於其他人群，幾乎就像他們是不同的物種。 因此，其他人群被視為次等人、害蟲、不可觸犯等等。 另一種方法是不重視個人自主性。 強迫或脅迫人們做符合他們自身利益或社會利益的事情是可以接受的，由專制者來決定。 科學和倫理不斷進步，每個人都應該遵循專家根據最佳人類知識制定的最佳實踐，而這些專家是由專制者批準的。 個人不能選擇自己的專家或自己思考。有時，這會以功利主義或結果主義倫理為藉口，專制者根據他們自己的指標和測量來計算對大多數人來說最好的利益。當科學由專制者確定後，人們必須被強制或脅迫去遵守。 類似的方法是聲稱每個人都必須遵循由專制者實踐的唯一真理宗教（以「宗教」一詞最廣泛的意義）。 無論是科學還是宗教變得教條化，都不允許個人自主性。 他們認為人們不能自由地做出錯誤的選擇來傷害自己或社會。 專制者聲稱為了確保和平與繁榮，不能允許個人自由。

2.4 Common Sense Realism Review / 常識現實主義檢討

Common Sense Realism provides the foundation for a free society of independent individuals covering areas of reality, human understanding, and basic morality.

「常識現實主義」為一個由獨立個體組成的自由社會奠定了基礎，涵蓋了現實、人類理解和基本道德等領域。

• External reality existis

• Individuals exist with independent consciousness and agency

• The individual is more important than a collective controlled by authoritarians

• Objective morality exists

• Everyone has limited, imperfect knowledge of reality (including basic morality)

• All humans can reason and further develop their senses and understanding of reality

• There are six values of basic morality that apply to everyone regardless of their religion

  • Life

  • Individual Agency

  • Family

  • Private Property

  • Honesty

  • Duty

• Individuals are guided by basic moral values

• Individuals adopt a religion (in the broadest sense) that is compatible with basic moral values

• Independence and individual agency is a moral good, but the use of force or coercion is justified in some cases

• 外部現實存在

• 個體擁有獨立的意識和自主性

• 個人比由專制者控制的集體更重要

• 客觀道德存在

• 每個人對現實（包括基本道德）都有有限且不完美的了解

• 所有人類都可以推理，並進一步發展他們的感官和對現實的理解

• 有六個基本的道德價值觀，適用於所有人，無論其宗教信仰如何：

  • 生命

  • 個人自主性

  • 家庭

  • 私有財產

  • 誠實

  • 責任

• 個體以基本道德價值觀為指導

• 個體可以選擇一種與基本道德價值觀相符的宗教（以最廣泛的意義）

• 獨立和個人自主是一種道德美德，但在某些情況下，使用武力或脅迫是合理的

3. Individual Rights / 個人權利

Building on Common Sense Realism, the concept of individual rights clarifies how and when force and coercion is and is not used. For example, religious practice is voluntary. Any individual right does not itself require force or coercion and must be grounded in Common Sense Realism. For example, people don’t have a right to a variety of food and shelter such that others must be forced to provide it for them. Charity is a voluntary act for both giving and receiving. Freedom is not about having lots of choices, it’s more about being free from authoritarian constraint to choose for oneself. That said, there are constraints found in reality including basic morality (life, individual agency, family, private property, honesty, and duty). For example, an authoritarian may arguably provide more choices to people, but it is at the expense of freedom, individual responsibility, and basic morality. Freedom is about independence aligned with morality and not about having a variety of choices.

Individuals have agency to build a moral life and contribute to society of their own accord. Most of the time, people are not be forced to do good for themselves or others. People make mistakes and live with the consequences of their actions. A perfect world is not natural. For example, take gluttony. It’s possible to monitor what people eat and force them to eat a healthy diet or at least spare them from an extremely unhealthy diet. Such a detailed level of force and coercion over what and how people eat is immoral. Whereas, authoritarians argue people can’t be allowed to make the wrong choices and choose what they eat.

基於「常識現實主義」，個人權利的觀念闡明了何時以及在什麼情況下可以使用或不使用武力或脅迫。 例如，宗教實踐是自願的。 任何個人權利本身都不需要武力或脅迫，並且必須以「常識現實主義」為基礎。 例如，人們沒有獲得多種食物和住所的權利，以致需要強迫他人為他們提供這些東西。 慈善是一種自願行為，無論是捐贈還是接受。 自由並非意味著擁有許多選擇，而是更多地意味著擺脫專制限制，以便自己做出選擇。 儘管如此，現實中存在一些限制，包括基本道德（生命、個人自主性、家庭、私有財產、誠實和責任）。 例如，一個專制者可能聲稱為人們提供更多的選擇，但這是以犧牲自由、個人責任和基本道德為代價的。 自由是指與道德相符的獨立，而不是擁有各種各樣的選擇。

個體擁有自主權，可以建立一種符合道德的生活，並自願地為社會做出貢獻。 大部分時間，人們不應該被強迫去做對自己或他人為「好」的事情。 人們會犯錯誤，並承受其行為的後果。 完美的世界是不自然的。 例如，考慮到暴飲暴食。 可以監控人們吃什麼，並強迫他們食用健康的飲食，或者至少避免他們食用極不健康的食物。 對於人們吃什麼以及如何吃，進行如此詳細的武力或脅迫是缺乏道德的。 然而，專制者認為，不能允許人們做出錯誤的選擇，並且不能讓他們自己決定要吃什麼。

When it comes to interactions between people, there are times to use force or coercion to limit individual freedom. There is not a simple moral rule or maxim to follow to know the limits of freedom and tolerance.34 For example, John Stuart Mill proposed the “harm principle” which roughly says one can act freely as long as others are not harmed. In addition to the difficulties of defining harm in a way that applies clearly to a wide range of human behavior and scenarios, even Mill recognized the harm principle alone could not justify restrictions on liberty.35 Instead, it is best to examine in more detail self-evident moral truths and their implications to different aspects of life in order to determine the limits of coercion and force. In short, it’s important to determine individual rights based on Common Sense Realism.

The following sections are a brief discussion of individual rights and when the use of coercion or force is justified. This discussion is focused on rights most closely related to Common Sense Realism, though there are additional rights that also derive from Common Sense Realism. Sometimes people get caught up in advocating for a specific way of life instead of determining when and how force and coercion applies. For example, it’s the difference between advocating for a specific diet as opposed to dealing with fraud related to food products. That said, with every individual right there are debatable scenarios of exactly when and how to apply coercion or force. There is always a need for human discernment.

在人與人之間的互動中，有時候需要使用武力或脅迫來限制個人的自由。 沒有一個簡單的道德規則或準則可以遵循，以確定自由和寬容的界限。 例如，約翰·斯圖爾特·密爾提出了「危害原則」，該原則大致認為，只要他人沒有受到傷害，個人就可以自由行動。 此外，除了定義「傷害」在多大程度上適用於廣泛的人類行為和情境之外，即使是密爾也承認，危害原則本身不足以證明對自由的限制。 相反，最好更詳細地探討自明的道德真理及其對不同生活方面的影響，以便確定脅迫和武力的界限。 總之，重要的是根據「常識現實主義」來確定個人權利。

以下部分簡要討論了個人權利以及何時可以使用脅迫或武力。 此討論側重於與「常識現實主義」最密切相關的權利，儘管還有其他從「常識現實主義」衍生出來的權利。 有時候，人們會沉迷於倡導某種生活方式，而不是確定何時以及如何使用武力或脅迫。 例如，這與倡導特定的飲食習慣不同於處理食品產品中的欺詐行為。 儘管如此，對於每項個人權利，都存在關於具體何時以及如何應用脅迫或武力的爭議場景。人類的辨別力/洞察力是永遠都有需求的。

3.1 Physical Body / 身體

Individuals have the right to control their health, what foods they eat, what medicines they take, and what medical procedures are performed on them. Individuals have the right to control their body movements, exercise, and are free to travel on their property and public lands within their borders. Coercion and force is used in cases to defend people from physical harm. Individuals have the right to self-defense and to protect their physical body.

個人有權控制自己的健康，包括飲食、服藥以及接受的醫療程序。 個人有權控制自己的身體活動，例如運動，並且可以在自己的土地和國家境內的公共土地上自由旅行。 在保護人們免受身體傷害的情況下，可以使用脅迫和武力。 個人有權進行自我防衛，並保護自己的身體。

3.2 Family / 家庭

Parents have the right to raise their children according to their own beliefs and practices including control over their children’s nutrition, education, and religion. The involvement of government and others in raising children requires permission from the parents. Coercion and force is used against parents only in rare cases. For example, taking away their child due to clear physical child abuse.

父母有權根據自己的信仰和習俗來撫養孩子，包括控制孩子的營養、教育和宗教。 政府和其他機構干預孩子們的撫養需要獲得父母的許可。 只有在極少數情況下，才會對父母使用脅迫或武力。 例如，如果存在明顯的虐待兒童行為，可能會剝奪他們的育兒權。

3.3 Property / 財產

Private property, where individuals control resources, is necessary for individual agency and independence. An individual is responsible for their property and how it is utilized and improved. Individuals have the right to determine how and when to exchange goods and services in order to improve their lives and improve society.36 Thus, stealing is immoral. Coercion and force is used to guard against theft.

私有財產，即個人控制資源，對於個人的自主性和獨立性至關重要。 個人應為自己的財產及其利用和改善負責。 個人有權決定如何以及何時交換商品和服務，以改善生活並促進社會發展。 因此，盜竊是不道德的。 使用脅迫和武力來防範盜竊。

3.4 Thought and Communication / 思想與溝通

Individuals have the right to cognitive liberty. People are free to communicate ideas through various mediums which requires the freedom to express information of their own choice and the freedom to receive information of their own choice.37 People are not compelled to express information or compelled to receive information.

While deceit, dishonesty, and manipulation are immoral, broad freedom of expression must be allowed for general discussion and opinion. Force or coercion against communication in the attempts to protect against all dishonesty, hate speech, etc. must not be allowed. Since human knowledge is imperfect, a free society depends on dissenting opinions, the ability to hold powerful governments and associations accountable, and open discussions to get closer to the truth. Moreover, identifying false or incorrect information helps sharpen correct information and provides a record of thought to avoid in the future.38

However, there are cases where coercion and force is used when communication goes beyond general discussion. For example, fraud, severe cases of slander or libel, and when expression is part of threatening behavior.

個人擁有認知自由的權利。 人們可以通過各種方式傳達想法，這需要能夠自由表達自己選擇的信息，以及能夠自由接收自己選擇的信息。 人們不應被強制表達信息，也不應被強制接收信息。

雖然欺騙、不誠實和操縱是不道德的，但為了進行一般的討論和意見交流，必須允許廣泛的言論自由。 不得以保護免受所有不誠實行為、仇恨言論等的名義，對溝通使用武力或脅迫。 由於人類知識是不完善的，一個自由的社會依賴於不同的觀點、能夠追究強大政府和組織的責任，以及開放的討論，以便更接近真相。 此外，識別虛假或不正確的信息有助於提高正確信息的準確性，並為避免未來犯同樣錯誤提供了參考。

然而，在某些情況下，當溝通超出一般討論範圍時，可以使用脅迫和武力。 例如，詐騙、嚴重的誹謗或中傷，以及當言論是威脅行為的一部分時。

3.5 Voluntary Association / 自願結社

Individuals are free to voluntarily create and join religious organizations, businesses, non-profit organizations, civic associations, and more. Similarly, associations voluntarily choose their members and conditions for membership.39 The associations and any resulting hierarchies are formed voluntarily.

個人可以自由地創建和加入宗教組織、企業、非營利組織、公民協會等。 類似地，協會自願選擇其成員以及會員資格的條件。 協會及其產生的任何等級結構都是自願形成的。

3.6 Privacy / 私隱

Individuals have a right to privacy regarding their property and information about them. People do not have to share their thoughts or give access to their property even when they have nothing to hide. For example, individuals are to be allowed to explore ideas and information without outside scrutiny. There is a right not to be surveilled and a right not to have behavior tracked by governments or associations.40 There is a right to communicate and transact anonymously. Privacy is more of a concern today given the advancements in technology to monitor and aggregate information.

人有權保護自己的財產和關於自己的信息。 人們不必分享他們的想法或允許他人進入他們的財產，即使他們沒有什麼可隱瞞。 例如，個人應該被允許探索想法和信息，而無需外部的審查。 人們有權不被監視，並且有權不被政府或協會追蹤其行為。 人們有權匿名溝通和交易。 由於技術在監控和彙總信息方面的進步，私隱問題在今天更加重要。

3.7 Individual Rights Review / 個人權利回顧

• Individuals have agency to build their life in accordance with nature

  • Normally people can’t be forced to do what is good for themselves and others

  • In some cases, force or coercion is applied to restrict liberty

• Individual Rights

  • Physical Body – self-defense, control over health, ability to act in the world, free movement

  • Family – parents rights to raise their children including education and healthcare

  • Property – private property, free exchange

  • Thought and Communication – cognitive liberty, freedom to communicate ideas, and no compelled communication

  • Voluntary Association – freedom to join and organize religious, commercial and civic organizations with no compelled membership

  • Privacy – right not to be surveilled or tracked, right to be silent, right to be anonymous

• 個人有能力按照自然的方式來規劃自己的人

  • 通常，人們不能被強制做對自己和他人都有利的事情

  • 在某些情況下，會使用武力或脅迫來限制自由

• 個人權利

  • 身體：自我防衛、控制健康、在世界中行動的能力、自由移動

  • 家庭：父母有權撫養孩子，包括教育和醫療保健

  • 財產：私有財產、自由交易

  • 思想與溝通：認知自由、自由傳達想法、不受強制溝通

  • 自願結社：可以自由加入和組織宗教、商業和公民組織，且不強制會員資格

  • 私隱：有權不被監視或追蹤、有權保持沉默、有權匿名

4. Associations / 協會

Associations, such as religious institutions, businesses, non-profits, political factions, etc. have a secondary priority to individuals. When associations are formed voluntarily in a free society, hierarchies naturally result that are primarily driven by merit. After goals are determined and rules are established, individuals are evaluated based on merit and decisions are made to achieve those goals withing the established bounds and basic morality that applies equally to everyone. For example, say Wilt Chamberlin makes a lot of money by traveling around to play basketball while people voluntarily pay to watch. Wilt is the star player and paid more than the other players and organizers.41 Another example, a local minister runs the local food bank for people to voluntarily give food to members of the community who reach out for help at his discretion. The minister knows the community and determines who is in need as opposed to who is trying to take advantage of the local church.42 Thus, there are differences in outcomes for various groups and individuals based on culture and individual choices which are morally justified. Life is not meant to have the same material outcomes or the same material starting points for every individual or group. This is morally desirable due to the natural variety of cultures, geographies, and choices that people make individually and through associations. This leads to different material outcomes which affect the starting point for the next generation and other different starting points across free societies.

協會，例如宗教機構、企業、非營利組織、政治派別等，的優先順序低於個人。當協會在自由社會中自願成立時，自然會產生等級結構，這些結構主要由能力決定。確定目標和建立規則後，根據個人的能力進行評估，並做出決策以實現這些目標，同時遵守既定的界限和適用於所有人的基本道德準則。例如，如果威爾特·張伯林通過在各地打籃球賺了很多錢，而人們自願付費來看比賽。威爾特是明星球員，比其他球員和組織者獲得更高的薪水。 另一個例子，一位當地牧師經營當地的食物銀行，讓社區成員自願捐贈食物給那些需要幫助的人。這位牧師了解社區，並判斷誰有需要，而不是誰試圖利用當地教會。因此，由於文化和個人選擇的不同，各個群體和個人的結果可能存在差異，這些差異在道德上是合理的。生活不應該對每個人或每個群體都具有相同的物質成果或相同的物質起點。這在道德上是可取的，因為自然存在各種文化、地理環境以及人們所做的個人選擇和通過協會所做出的選擇。這導致不同的物質結果，這些結果會影響下一代的起點以及自由社會中的其他不同的起點。

There are situations where force and coercion are justified to use against associations to protect the rights of individuals or other associations. For example, force and coercion is used to guard against bribery, extortion, price manipulation, racketeering, market manipulation, treason, and more.43 44 However, it is unjustified to coerce individuals into exchanging their individual rights, such as privacy, in order to access a product or service from a government or association. In a free society, individual rights are protected and not exchanged.45 On the other hand, greater transparency is required of governments and associations to expose potential unjust actions against individuals. Moreover, when individuals and associations voluntarily give up their responsibility in exchange for government protection from liability and other so-called advantages, the resulting government-created fictional entities, such as corporations and non-profits, are subject to extra scrutiny. Being wealthy, being a large association, or even being a monopoly is not inherently immoral or undesirable; people examine specific behaviors to determine when force and coercion is approriate.

在某些情況下，可以使用武力或脅迫來對抗協會，以保護個人的權利或其他協會的權利。例如，使用武力或脅迫可以防止貪污、勒索、價格操縱、敲詐勒索、市場操縱、叛國等行為。然而，強迫個人出讓他們的個人權利，例如私隱，以便從政府或協會獲得產品或服務，是不合理的。在自由社會中，個人權利受到保護，不會被出讓。此外，需要對政府和協會進行更大的透明度，以揭露可能針對個人的不公正行為。此外，當個人和協會自願放棄他們的責任，以換取政府提供的免責和其他所謂的優勢時，由此產生的由政府創建的虛擬實體，例如公司和非營利組織，將受到額外的審查。財富、大型協會，甚至壟斷本身並不是固有的不道德或不受歡迎的；人們會檢查具體的行為，以確定何時適用武力或脅迫。

Individual rights take precedent over associations, government, and government fictions. Ideally, a free society has individuals and associations with minimal dependence on government and minimal use of government fictions. Currently, government fictions, such as corporations and non-profit organizations, are used to minimize individual responsibility and accountability which is a key basis for independence and basic morality. For example, if most activity is done through government and government fictions, and if every person needs an identifier to participate in society that is issued by a government or government fiction, then most activity is subject to extra scrutiny, individual rights are less protected, and individuals have less independence. In short, it’s a society with less freedom.

個人權利優先於協會、政府和政府虛擬實體。理想情況下，一個自由社會應該是個人和協會與政府以及政府虛擬實體之間的依賴性最小。目前，政府虛擬實體，例如公司和非營利組織，被用於減少對於獨立性和基本道德至關重要的個人責任和問責。例如，如果大多數活動都通過政府和政府虛擬實體進行，並且如果每個人都需要一個由政府或政府虛擬實體發行的身份證才能參與社會，那麼大多數活動都會受到額外的審查，個人權利將受到較少的保護，並且個人將擁有較少的獨立性。簡而言之，這是一個自由度較低的社會。

In general, decentralization of government and associations helps improve a free society by increasing independence and minimizing the extent of the damage from corruption and unforeseen failures.46 However, decentralization can be done in ways that are detrimental to freedom. Decentralization can lead to inter-dependence instead of independence where each decentralized organization is tightly coupled and dependent on other organizations. Inter-dependence is centralization with a flatter hierarchy.47 The key to avoiding inter-dependence is having independent organizations that can operate and make independent decisions without undue coercion or reliance on outside influences. Furthermore, power can corrupt, and an independent small town or small business can be corrupted when power is concentrated in a few individuals with little to no oversight. Additionally, forced decentralization, e.g. redistribution of wealth, can be done by a more powerful, more centralized authority. In this case, the centralized authority doing the redistribution is then subject to corruption and failures. Finally, large organizations and bureaucracies are needed to accomplish larger tasks. For example, security for the survival of a free society. All of this is to say, that there is not a simple and easy way to organize society or obvious size limits to put in place on governments, associations, or wealth. There is no set of processes or way to organize a free society which perfectly guards against corruption, injustice, and failure. Individuals must take responsibility and utilize institutions and processes to help society function in accordance with Common Sense Realism. Individuals within a free society voluntarily and organically develop associations. As mentioned before, it’s best to focus on specific behaviors and to be transparent about the reasons for applying force or coercion. Later on in this paper, checks and balances will be discussed which are also applicable to guard against corruption and failures.

總體而言，政府和協會的去中心化有助於改善自由社會，因為它可以提高獨立性並最大限度地減少腐敗和意外失敗造成的損害。然而，去中心化可以以對自由有害的方式進行。去中心化可能導致相互依賴，而不是獨立，其中每個去中心化的組織都與其他組織緊密相連且相互依賴。相互依賴是具有較扁平層級結構的集中化。避免相互依賴的關鍵是擁有可以獨立運作並在沒有不當脅迫或依賴外部影響的情況下做出獨立決策的獨立組織。此外，權力會導致腐敗，一個獨立的小鎮或小型企業可能會因為權力集中在少數人手中且缺乏監督而受到腐敗的影響。此外，強制去中心化，例如財富再分配，可能由更強大、更集中的權威實施。在這種情況下，進行財富再分配的集中性權威本身就會受到腐敗和失敗的影響。最後，需要大型組織和官僚機構來完成更大的任務。例如，確保自由社會的生存。總之，沒有一種簡單且容易的方法可以組織社會，也沒有明顯的政府、協會或財富規模限制。不存在一套過程或方法可以完美地組織一個自由社會，以防止腐敗、不公正和失敗。個人必須承擔責任，並利用機構和流程來幫助社會按照常識現實主義的原則運作。在自由社會中，個人會自願且有機地發展協會。如前所述，最好關注具體的行為，並且要公開說明應用武力或脅迫的原因。稍後在本論文中，將討論制衡機制，這些機制也適用於防止腐敗和失敗。

Authoritarians sometimes view society as split between oppressed and oppressor groups of people. They see collective identity groups, instead of individual agency, as the drivers of what happens in society and what happens to people within it. For the oppressed groups, authoritarians argue there should be no consequences for individual actions and that previous generations should not impact later generations disproportionately.49 They argue for equity which means equal outcomes by identity group. Authoritarians determine what equity is by using their own measurements and group statistics while not accounting for individual behavior. Similarly, some authoritarians argue every group should start from the same place with adjustments made for historical disparities as determined by the authoritarians. It’s not about opportunity, agency, or consistent application of the law. Alternatively, for the oppressor groups, authoritarians argue for endless consequences for individual actions and the actions of previous generations.50 For example, people should be fired for a social media post and pay reparations for slavery from hundreds of years ago.

極權主義者有時將社會視為受壓迫群體和施壓群體之間的對立。他們認為集體身份群體而不是個人能動性是影響社會以及社會中人們所發生事情的驅動因素。對於受壓迫群體，極權主義者認為不應對個人的行為產生任何後果，並且上一代不應不成比例地影響下一代。他們主張實現公平，即通過身份群體實現平等的結果。極權主義者使用自己的衡量標準和群體統計數據來確定什麼是公平，而沒有考慮個人行為。同樣，一些極權主義者認為每個群體都應該從相同的起點開始，並根據極權主義者的決定進行歷史差異的調整。這不是關於機會、能動性或一致地應用法律。另一方面，對於施壓群體，極權主義者主張對個人的行為以及上一代的行為產生無限的後果。例如，人們可能會因為在社交媒體上的發文而被解僱，並為數百年前的奴隸制支付賠償金。

5. Conflict Resolution / 衝突解決

Humanity has no shortage of guidance and advice for behavior. From Common Sense Realism, there is a basic morality everyone can understand: life, individual agency, family, private property, honesty, and duty. Moreover, there are numerous religious, philosophical, and spiritual practices anyone can follow. In a free society, individuals think for themselves, use their reasoning, and apply guidance to act of their own accord. However, with imperfect knowledge, complex situations, a lack of human will, and even nefarious intent, it is not in human nature to always do the right thing or even know the right thing to do. Thus, there must be ways to negotiate, resolve conflicts, correct mistakes, and have paths for redemption. The aim of a free society is not a utopia, not a perfect society. The aim is to find better ways to resolve conflict and to work with the human condition and nature by more closely aligning with Common Sense Realism.

人類在行為指導和建議方面從未匱乏。從常識現實主義來看，存在一種每個人都能理解的基本道德觀念：生命、個人能動性、家庭、私有財產、誠實和責任。此外，還有眾多宗教、哲學和精神修煉方法供任何人遵循。在一個自由社會中，個人會獨立思考，運用他們的理智，並根據自己的意願來應用指導原則。然而，由於知識的不完善、複雜的局勢、缺乏人類意志，甚至邪惡的意圖，人類天性並非總是做好事，或者知道該做什麼才是正確的事。因此，必須有方法來協商、解決衝突、糾正錯誤，並且要為人們提供救贖之路。一個自由社會的目標不是建立烏托邦，也不是建立一個完美的社會。其目標是找到更好的解決衝突的方法，並通過更緊密地遵循常識現實主義，與人類的本性和處境相協調。

Individual responsibility is a key aspect of a free society, so conflict resolution starts with individuals and associations working amongst themselves to resolve issues, apply reasoning, rectify errors, and make improvements by appealing to objective reality including basic morality. Ideally this is done voluntarily and honestly. Of course, individuals and associations may resort to coercion and even the use of force. This use of coercion or force may be done justly or unjustly. Conflict resolution can and is done by individuals and associations, including the use of coercion and force. Government is an additional means to resolve disputes and organize society that can also use coercion and force.

個人責任是自由社會的一個關鍵方面，因此衝突解決始於個人和協會之間互相合作以解決問題、運用理智、糾正錯誤，並通過訴諸客觀現實（包括基本道德）來改進。理想情況下，這應該是自願且誠實地完成的。當然，個人和協會可能會訴諸脅迫，甚至使用武力。這種脅迫或武力的使用可能是公正的，也可能是不正當的。衝突解決可以由個人和協會來完成，包括使用脅迫和武力。政府是解決爭端和組織社會的一種額外手段，它也可以使用脅迫和武力。

（續…）