For our purpose, we will consider a simple model of two individuals A and B. Both the individuals are equal, which we can take to be axiomatic in nature or from the assumption that nobody is divine or special. Thus, they are basically equal. We make one more assumption that all the other things are equal also.
The rights are treated here as tangibles because these are something which can be given or taken away by the authorities that be. Anything which can be taken or given, can be regarded as tangible especially when the results are tangible and determine the course of lives of people in general. However, this may not make much of a difference.
We also assume that the society has no outright claim against any individual. The rights of authorities, if any, are exactly offset by the duties devolved on it. The claims can only be made by individuals or on their behalf. The society can claim rights as only as the representative of individuals or people. The society can evidently have rights but these are the claims made by individuals or a group or groups. These society claims are largely aggregation of few individual claims. These may actually be dependent on agreement or force. The ultimate claims originate from the individuals only. The society, social groups and/or state have/has coercive power which individual lacks. It can force the individual to abide by its dictates. It can force its dictates as naturalized state but never through claims. The existence of a society does not necessarily means that it is a just one. It may be cruel and unjust depending upon who is controlling it. The controlling group can trample on the rights of the people, and it can snatch their rights right under their noses. Under the garb of religion or tradition, it can cheat them out of their rights. Or it may outright steal their rights. The only things, which the people whose rights have been stolen, know, are the disabilities imposed upon them. If people have duties then where are the corresponding rights?
Here we denote the right claims by CR and duties claim by CD. Now, we introduce a critical concept that each claim by any individual instantaneously gives rise to equal counter claim. Suppose A makes a claim on B, then an equal counter claim is produced from B on A. Let the right claim from A on B be denoted by CRab and the counter right claim from B be denoted by CRba. It should be noted that the directions of both the claim and the counter claim are opposite to each other and they are equal in magnitude. The claim and counter claim cannot be unequal. In such a situation CRab + CRba = 0. It so because CRab = - CRba since the magnitude is the same but the directions are opposite. By reversing the direction of either claim or counter claim, we get the other. Thus, the net claim in our simple model is zero.
Similarly, in case of a claim made by B against A gives rise, instantaneously, to equal counter claim from A against B. Let the claim from B against A be denoted by CRba and counter claim from A be denoted by CRab. The individual are denoted small letters a and b. It should be noted that the directions of both the claim and the counter claim are opposite to each other and they are equal in magnitude. For an impartial observer the claim and counter claim cannot be unequal. In such a situation CRab + CRba = 0. It so because CRab = - CRba since the magnitude is the same but the directions are opposite. By reversing the direction of either claim or counter claim, we get the other. Thus, the net claim in our simple model is again zero.
Therefore, in our model, the net claim on anybody is zero and net claim against anybody is also zero. This can be generalized for n number of individuals.
Let us see that how the plain physical aggression (V= violence) can be treated in our simple model. The important thing is the assumption of all the other things being equal. A plain physical aggression in any form can be taken as a claim by one individual on the body of another individual. Therefore, if A makes a claim to physically harm B then we take it as a claim of A on B (CRVab). Accordingly, it gives rise to instant and equal counter claim of B on A (CRVba). Both the claim and counter claim are equal and act in opposite direction. Thus, the summation of both is zero or they nullify each other. In other words CRVab + CRVba = 0 since CRVab = - CRVba. The net claim with regard to violence in our simple model is zero. Theoretical net violent claims do not exist as they nullify each other. This we can regard as non-existence of violence as a net claim. Thus A and B are entitled to peace. This entitlement means that both A and B have a duty each to allow each other to live peacefully. Their claims of duties are in turn offset by instant creation of counter claim.
A may also claim that B has a duty to not to violate him then again an instant counter claim flows from B to A. CDVab + CDVba =0. A’s both claims about right to violate B and about duty of B to not to violate him are instantly nullified. Thus, both the individual can live in peace. Otherwise, an imbalance will be created resulting in potential and/or realized injustice. This can be called absence of violence.
Thus we have
CRVab + CRVba = 0 and
CDVab + CDVba =0
There are positive as well as negative claims in the society. An example of negative claim is liberty. The liberty of both the individual can be taken as negative claim and instant negative counter claim thus nullifying claims. Liberty has a place to stay. There are no net claims against it. If A claims that B owes a duty to him of not interfering with him then an instant counter claim from B that A also owes him similar duty. Thus, there is not net claim against liberty. Equal liberty exists for everybody. If liberty does not exist equally for everybody then we according to our model say that there is exploitation or injustice in the society.
For liberty (L) we have
CDLab + CDLba =0 and
CRLab + CRLba =0
Now, we will examine the claim regarding the freedom to do anything. The absence of violence means that any individual cannot make claim which involves the use of violence. This indeed limits the area of freedom and liberty. This is necessary for peaceful living. However, the freedom of expression is still maintained. If A prevents B from expressing his views/opinions then it is a claim against B then instantly an equal counter claim comes into existence force in opposite direction thus preventing A from preventing B from expressing his views and opinions. The net forces against freedom of expression are nil. This we can say that freedom of expression exists. The freedom of expression is supported by the absence of violence that we have derived by introducing the concept of instant creation of equal counter claim. Thus, everyone is at liberty to criticize everybody else. Thus, A and B are entitled to freedom of expression.
Similarly A cannot claim that he can live in peace but not B. If he claims so that a combined counter claim is created from B to A thus nullifying A’s claim.
Let us consider a situation where A claims B owes a duty to him. In this case, an instant and equal counter claim arises from B against A. So that we have CDab + CDba =0. This is highly useful when A makes a claim that B has a duty to not interfere with A’s freedom. Then an instant counter claim arises from B that A owes the same duty to him. In this case, there is no imbalance in liberties of two individuals. There are no net claims against liberty. In a situation where net positive or negative claims exist and recognized as rights by law or by tradition then we can say that an unjust situation exists. In other words, injustice howsoever small exists.
Now let us assume that both A and B possess equal private properties, a common property and a land owned by nobody. In case of private property a claim by A on property owned by B is taken as a claim by A against B. Such a claim CRPab (P =property) instantly gives rise to an equal counter claim by B against A (CRPba). Both the claims nullify each other and there is no net claim on anybody’s property by either A or B. Similarly, claims regarding duties of staying away from each other are cancelled. Nobody can use others’ property. In case of common property, a claim by A to prevent B from using the common property creates an equal counter claim from B against A preventing A from using the common property. Thus, nobody can prevent the other from using the common property. The Absence of Violence is applied in all the cases. In case of a land which is owned by nobody, the claim of A using the unowned land is a claim against “not A” which prevents “not A” from using this land. This instantly creates an equal counter claim by “not A” (= B) which nullifies A’s claim. Thus, nobody can own the unowned land.
Now we will consider the claims regarding interference. Any claim to interfere is countered by an equal claim in opposite direction. Thus, the net claim to interference is nil.
After all this, we are left with a situation where a compromised is arrived at through mutual agreement (said or unsaid or tacit) or mutual agreement through free will. However, this mutual free will can be moulded by the cultural differences.
Now we will consider the assets or objects or property.
If A has a right to x then x is object of A’s claims.
Further, let us assume that A produces good x and B produces good y but both of them need each other’s good. So they want to claim the good of each other but it is not possible as we know the claims on goods and respective equal counter claims. The way out of it is to exchange the claims. A can exchange claims on y with B’s claim on x. In case of perfect knowledge the exchange would be on the basis of equitable respective values of x and y. (X=exchange)
Therefore CRXAaby + CRXbax = 0
For this x =y , the exchanged goods must be equal to each other. But it is true only in case where good are equal valued where goods are not equal valued their value should be equal. For this if px is price of good x and p y is price of good y then AB(qy × py) +BA (qx × px ) = 0
For this to hold it is necessary that qy × py = qx × px
then
py ÷ px = qx ÷ qy
which means that the goods should be exchanged according to their exchange value which is denoted here by the ratio of their prices. This is needed in the societies where the number of commodities needed has increased and labor specialization is necessary to produce all the goods. The exchange of produce should be at their respective exchange values.
Now we know that a man is a social being; he cannot live without society. Now we will expand our simple model and allow it have a society while maintaining the principle of equality. Each individual is equal to each other in the sense that nobody has been specially sent in this world to rule over others.
Let there be n individual be in society. We know that there is safety in numbers, so the first task of society to defend the individual. Our model is still very simple. We will keep it that way.
We will assume that the claims within the groups are equally distributed. This is a serious assumption and culture specific. So A has claims against everybody and everybody else has claims against A.
The individuals are denoted by
A1, A2, A3, …, An
We know that claims and counter claims are equal and neutralize each other so that their sum is zero.
A1 A2 + A2 A1 = 0
Now the major role of society is to provide the security from external violence then we have a claim for safety from external violence by A1 on society which is denoted by A΄. A΄ includes everybody in the society except A. now the claim of security by A1 against A΄ will be denoted by A1A΄ and claim by the other members will be denoted as A1A΄. The sum of these two will be zero.
A1 A΄ + A΄ A1 = 0
Now A΄ can be shown by ( A2 U A3 U …U An ) excluding A1 . Then we have A1 A΄ + A΄ A1 = 0
A1 ( A2 U A3 U …U An ) + ( A2 U A3 U …U An ) A1 =0
Opening by distributive law we get
A1A2, U A1 A3 U …U A1 An + ( A2 A1 U A3 A1 U …U An A1 ) =0
Rearranging we get
A1A2 + A2 A1 U A1 A3+ A3 A1 U …U A1 An + An A1 =0
(A1A2 + A2 A1 ) U (A1 A3+ A3 A1 ) U …U (A1 An + An A1) =0
0 U 0 U 0 U… U 0 = 0
which is zero because all the opposing pairs taken separately produce a sum of zero.
This means that nobody in this individualistic society is obliged to anybody for safety of life because others are also doing the same. However, if he runs way in face of attack then forfeits his right to be saved. Zero duties mean zero rights.
Let us take the case of a society which is family oriented and the individual as a separate entity does not exist. The individual can only be recognized as a part of family. In this case let A and B represent families and A1, A2, A3,…, An are the members of the family A and B1, B2, B3, … , Bm are the members of the family B. But outside family A1=A2=A3=…..=An = Ai which means that all the members are the same for the outsiders. And B1=B2=B3=….=Bm=Bj which means that all the members are the same for the outsiders. The deeds of a member are included into deeds of his family and they are not counted separately. Similarly, the duties and rights of any members are the duties and rights of his family. A crime against a member of any family is a crime against that family. Similarly, a crime by a member of any family is a crime by family. The whole family is held accountable. This is so because any individual is not differentiated from his family by other families or by rest of the society.
Here again we have claims which add up to zero in case of families. CRab + CRba = 0. Thus, the families have freedom but not the individuals. The individuals have to follow the dictates of the families because out of family, the society does not provide them any social or economic support. This is indeed the case when individual on its own does not exist in the society. He exists as a member of the family. He may also exist as member of clan, tribe, society or nation.
Let us consider a society which is collective in nature. The individuals do no matter much here. Here the importance goes down as the population of society goes up. Here also we are using the assumption that all the other things remain the same. Let us see what happens to a claim made by an individual against the society. The instant counter claim will arise against individual but it will not be equal as we will see. It is the result of importance of individual going down as the population goes up.
In a collective society where
A1 A′ + A′ A1 < 0
The society is more important than the individuals. The claim of society is greater than that of individual. Let us consider a society of three individual – A, B and C. It is assumed to be collective society.
However on some issue A isolates and on some issue and makes a claim against B and C. But this is collective society, and B and C still agree with each other. Therefore, they form a union called BUC. Now we have to introduce the concept of united claims. One can make only individual claims or single claims. Many individual similar claims do not add up. Their addition remains one no matter how many time an individual repeats the claim. That C1 +C2 + C3 + ……+ Cn = C1 . On the other hand, the claims of two individuals get united and it is what we call a united claim. A united claim is equivalent to number of individual forming a union. Thus Ca(bUc) is a single claim because it originates from a single individual but C(bUc)a is a united claim and twice the claim of A and raising an instant counter claim by BUC creates an imbalance because the claims do not equalize. The sign “U” takes precedence over sign “+” where as in individualistic societies the sign “+” takes precedence over sign “U”.
Thus Ca(bUc) < C(bUc)a
Therefore, in a collective society an individual will be in disadvantage and may have to suffer injustice. Now we introduce another individual D in this collective society. Still bUb will dominate because its united claim against and individual A and D separately will always weigh more than individual claims. In that case A and D may no have alternative but become a part of bUb and make a bUcUaUd so that injustice is removed. Another course may be for And D to make a union and thus be in position to make an equal instant unite counter claim thus nullifying the claims of bUc. Then we have
CR(aUd)(bUc) + CR(bUc)(aUd) = 0
CD(aUd)(bUc) + CD(bUc)(aUd) = 0
Anyway nothing can be said without know the internal structure and the relations with in it. Society does serve many purposes. It enables production of goods far in excess of what individual can make on his own. The exchange of goods facilitates that a non-producer gets to consume the goods which he does not consume but gets them in exchange of goods he produces and money plays a vast role in it.
Let the claim of individual be represented by A1 A′
Here A1 A′ + ( A2 U A3 U …U An ) A1 ≠ 0 because A cannot make claims against individuals (as it is a collective society) though he can make a claim against them as one of them. The claim of the individual is weighed out by sheer numbers. U takes precedence over +. Let A be any individual from the point of society. So A = A1 and A = A2, and A = An . So we first we have to sum up the claims of the society which is equal to (n-1) A A1. The claim of A1 gets diluted because he is alone and his claim carries only 1/(n-1) weight where n is number of people in society. Thus
A1 A′ = A1 (n-1) A / (n-1)
A1 A′ = A1 A < (n-1)A A1
Thus, in a large collective society the individual becomes negligible and only the group identity emerges. The collective decisions rule.
The rights are treated here as tangibles because these are something which can be given or taken away by the authorities that be. Anything which can be taken or given, can be regarded as tangible especially when the results are tangible and determine the course of lives of people in general. However, this may not make much of a difference.
We also assume that the society has no outright claim against any individual. The rights of authorities, if any, are exactly offset by the duties devolved on it. The claims can only be made by individuals or on their behalf. The society can claim rights as only as the representative of individuals or people. The society can evidently have rights but these are the claims made by individuals or a group or groups. These society claims are largely aggregation of few individual claims. These may actually be dependent on agreement or force. The ultimate claims originate from the individuals only. The society, social groups and/or state have/has coercive power which individual lacks. It can force the individual to abide by its dictates. It can force its dictates as naturalized state but never through claims. The existence of a society does not necessarily means that it is a just one. It may be cruel and unjust depending upon who is controlling it. The controlling group can trample on the rights of the people, and it can snatch their rights right under their noses. Under the garb of religion or tradition, it can cheat them out of their rights. Or it may outright steal their rights. The only things, which the people whose rights have been stolen, know, are the disabilities imposed upon them. If people have duties then where are the corresponding rights?
Here we denote the right claims by CR and duties claim by CD. Now, we introduce a critical concept that each claim by any individual instantaneously gives rise to equal counter claim. Suppose A makes a claim on B, then an equal counter claim is produced from B on A. Let the right claim from A on B be denoted by CRab and the counter right claim from B be denoted by CRba. It should be noted that the directions of both the claim and the counter claim are opposite to each other and they are equal in magnitude. The claim and counter claim cannot be unequal. In such a situation CRab + CRba = 0. It so because CRab = - CRba since the magnitude is the same but the directions are opposite. By reversing the direction of either claim or counter claim, we get the other. Thus, the net claim in our simple model is zero.
Similarly, in case of a claim made by B against A gives rise, instantaneously, to equal counter claim from A against B. Let the claim from B against A be denoted by CRba and counter claim from A be denoted by CRab. The individual are denoted small letters a and b. It should be noted that the directions of both the claim and the counter claim are opposite to each other and they are equal in magnitude. For an impartial observer the claim and counter claim cannot be unequal. In such a situation CRab + CRba = 0. It so because CRab = - CRba since the magnitude is the same but the directions are opposite. By reversing the direction of either claim or counter claim, we get the other. Thus, the net claim in our simple model is again zero.
Therefore, in our model, the net claim on anybody is zero and net claim against anybody is also zero. This can be generalized for n number of individuals.
Let us see that how the plain physical aggression (V= violence) can be treated in our simple model. The important thing is the assumption of all the other things being equal. A plain physical aggression in any form can be taken as a claim by one individual on the body of another individual. Therefore, if A makes a claim to physically harm B then we take it as a claim of A on B (CRVab). Accordingly, it gives rise to instant and equal counter claim of B on A (CRVba). Both the claim and counter claim are equal and act in opposite direction. Thus, the summation of both is zero or they nullify each other. In other words CRVab + CRVba = 0 since CRVab = - CRVba. The net claim with regard to violence in our simple model is zero. Theoretical net violent claims do not exist as they nullify each other. This we can regard as non-existence of violence as a net claim. Thus A and B are entitled to peace. This entitlement means that both A and B have a duty each to allow each other to live peacefully. Their claims of duties are in turn offset by instant creation of counter claim.
A may also claim that B has a duty to not to violate him then again an instant counter claim flows from B to A. CDVab + CDVba =0. A’s both claims about right to violate B and about duty of B to not to violate him are instantly nullified. Thus, both the individual can live in peace. Otherwise, an imbalance will be created resulting in potential and/or realized injustice. This can be called absence of violence.
Thus we have
CRVab + CRVba = 0 and
CDVab + CDVba =0
There are positive as well as negative claims in the society. An example of negative claim is liberty. The liberty of both the individual can be taken as negative claim and instant negative counter claim thus nullifying claims. Liberty has a place to stay. There are no net claims against it. If A claims that B owes a duty to him of not interfering with him then an instant counter claim from B that A also owes him similar duty. Thus, there is not net claim against liberty. Equal liberty exists for everybody. If liberty does not exist equally for everybody then we according to our model say that there is exploitation or injustice in the society.
For liberty (L) we have
CDLab + CDLba =0 and
CRLab + CRLba =0
Now, we will examine the claim regarding the freedom to do anything. The absence of violence means that any individual cannot make claim which involves the use of violence. This indeed limits the area of freedom and liberty. This is necessary for peaceful living. However, the freedom of expression is still maintained. If A prevents B from expressing his views/opinions then it is a claim against B then instantly an equal counter claim comes into existence force in opposite direction thus preventing A from preventing B from expressing his views and opinions. The net forces against freedom of expression are nil. This we can say that freedom of expression exists. The freedom of expression is supported by the absence of violence that we have derived by introducing the concept of instant creation of equal counter claim. Thus, everyone is at liberty to criticize everybody else. Thus, A and B are entitled to freedom of expression.
Similarly A cannot claim that he can live in peace but not B. If he claims so that a combined counter claim is created from B to A thus nullifying A’s claim.
Let us consider a situation where A claims B owes a duty to him. In this case, an instant and equal counter claim arises from B against A. So that we have CDab + CDba =0. This is highly useful when A makes a claim that B has a duty to not interfere with A’s freedom. Then an instant counter claim arises from B that A owes the same duty to him. In this case, there is no imbalance in liberties of two individuals. There are no net claims against liberty. In a situation where net positive or negative claims exist and recognized as rights by law or by tradition then we can say that an unjust situation exists. In other words, injustice howsoever small exists.
Now let us assume that both A and B possess equal private properties, a common property and a land owned by nobody. In case of private property a claim by A on property owned by B is taken as a claim by A against B. Such a claim CRPab (P =property) instantly gives rise to an equal counter claim by B against A (CRPba). Both the claims nullify each other and there is no net claim on anybody’s property by either A or B. Similarly, claims regarding duties of staying away from each other are cancelled. Nobody can use others’ property. In case of common property, a claim by A to prevent B from using the common property creates an equal counter claim from B against A preventing A from using the common property. Thus, nobody can prevent the other from using the common property. The Absence of Violence is applied in all the cases. In case of a land which is owned by nobody, the claim of A using the unowned land is a claim against “not A” which prevents “not A” from using this land. This instantly creates an equal counter claim by “not A” (= B) which nullifies A’s claim. Thus, nobody can own the unowned land.
Now we will consider the claims regarding interference. Any claim to interfere is countered by an equal claim in opposite direction. Thus, the net claim to interference is nil.
After all this, we are left with a situation where a compromised is arrived at through mutual agreement (said or unsaid or tacit) or mutual agreement through free will. However, this mutual free will can be moulded by the cultural differences.
Now we will consider the assets or objects or property.
If A has a right to x then x is object of A’s claims.
Further, let us assume that A produces good x and B produces good y but both of them need each other’s good. So they want to claim the good of each other but it is not possible as we know the claims on goods and respective equal counter claims. The way out of it is to exchange the claims. A can exchange claims on y with B’s claim on x. In case of perfect knowledge the exchange would be on the basis of equitable respective values of x and y. (X=exchange)
Therefore CRXAaby + CRXbax = 0
For this x =y , the exchanged goods must be equal to each other. But it is true only in case where good are equal valued where goods are not equal valued their value should be equal. For this if px is price of good x and p y is price of good y then AB(qy × py) +BA (qx × px ) = 0
For this to hold it is necessary that qy × py = qx × px
then
py ÷ px = qx ÷ qy
which means that the goods should be exchanged according to their exchange value which is denoted here by the ratio of their prices. This is needed in the societies where the number of commodities needed has increased and labor specialization is necessary to produce all the goods. The exchange of produce should be at their respective exchange values.
Now we know that a man is a social being; he cannot live without society. Now we will expand our simple model and allow it have a society while maintaining the principle of equality. Each individual is equal to each other in the sense that nobody has been specially sent in this world to rule over others.
Let there be n individual be in society. We know that there is safety in numbers, so the first task of society to defend the individual. Our model is still very simple. We will keep it that way.
We will assume that the claims within the groups are equally distributed. This is a serious assumption and culture specific. So A has claims against everybody and everybody else has claims against A.
The individuals are denoted by
A1, A2, A3, …, An
We know that claims and counter claims are equal and neutralize each other so that their sum is zero.
A1 A2 + A2 A1 = 0
Now the major role of society is to provide the security from external violence then we have a claim for safety from external violence by A1 on society which is denoted by A΄. A΄ includes everybody in the society except A. now the claim of security by A1 against A΄ will be denoted by A1A΄ and claim by the other members will be denoted as A1A΄. The sum of these two will be zero.
A1 A΄ + A΄ A1 = 0
Now A΄ can be shown by ( A2 U A3 U …U An ) excluding A1 . Then we have A1 A΄ + A΄ A1 = 0
A1 ( A2 U A3 U …U An ) + ( A2 U A3 U …U An ) A1 =0
Opening by distributive law we get
A1A2, U A1 A3 U …U A1 An + ( A2 A1 U A3 A1 U …U An A1 ) =0
Rearranging we get
A1A2 + A2 A1 U A1 A3+ A3 A1 U …U A1 An + An A1 =0
(A1A2 + A2 A1 ) U (A1 A3+ A3 A1 ) U …U (A1 An + An A1) =0
0 U 0 U 0 U… U 0 = 0
which is zero because all the opposing pairs taken separately produce a sum of zero.
This means that nobody in this individualistic society is obliged to anybody for safety of life because others are also doing the same. However, if he runs way in face of attack then forfeits his right to be saved. Zero duties mean zero rights.
Let us take the case of a society which is family oriented and the individual as a separate entity does not exist. The individual can only be recognized as a part of family. In this case let A and B represent families and A1, A2, A3,…, An are the members of the family A and B1, B2, B3, … , Bm are the members of the family B. But outside family A1=A2=A3=…..=An = Ai which means that all the members are the same for the outsiders. And B1=B2=B3=….=Bm=Bj which means that all the members are the same for the outsiders. The deeds of a member are included into deeds of his family and they are not counted separately. Similarly, the duties and rights of any members are the duties and rights of his family. A crime against a member of any family is a crime against that family. Similarly, a crime by a member of any family is a crime by family. The whole family is held accountable. This is so because any individual is not differentiated from his family by other families or by rest of the society.
Here again we have claims which add up to zero in case of families. CRab + CRba = 0. Thus, the families have freedom but not the individuals. The individuals have to follow the dictates of the families because out of family, the society does not provide them any social or economic support. This is indeed the case when individual on its own does not exist in the society. He exists as a member of the family. He may also exist as member of clan, tribe, society or nation.
Let us consider a society which is collective in nature. The individuals do no matter much here. Here the importance goes down as the population of society goes up. Here also we are using the assumption that all the other things remain the same. Let us see what happens to a claim made by an individual against the society. The instant counter claim will arise against individual but it will not be equal as we will see. It is the result of importance of individual going down as the population goes up.
In a collective society where
A1 A′ + A′ A1 < 0
The society is more important than the individuals. The claim of society is greater than that of individual. Let us consider a society of three individual – A, B and C. It is assumed to be collective society.
However on some issue A isolates and on some issue and makes a claim against B and C. But this is collective society, and B and C still agree with each other. Therefore, they form a union called BUC. Now we have to introduce the concept of united claims. One can make only individual claims or single claims. Many individual similar claims do not add up. Their addition remains one no matter how many time an individual repeats the claim. That C1 +C2 + C3 + ……+ Cn = C1 . On the other hand, the claims of two individuals get united and it is what we call a united claim. A united claim is equivalent to number of individual forming a union. Thus Ca(bUc) is a single claim because it originates from a single individual but C(bUc)a is a united claim and twice the claim of A and raising an instant counter claim by BUC creates an imbalance because the claims do not equalize. The sign “U” takes precedence over sign “+” where as in individualistic societies the sign “+” takes precedence over sign “U”.
Thus Ca(bUc) < C(bUc)a
Therefore, in a collective society an individual will be in disadvantage and may have to suffer injustice. Now we introduce another individual D in this collective society. Still bUb will dominate because its united claim against and individual A and D separately will always weigh more than individual claims. In that case A and D may no have alternative but become a part of bUb and make a bUcUaUd so that injustice is removed. Another course may be for And D to make a union and thus be in position to make an equal instant unite counter claim thus nullifying the claims of bUc. Then we have
CR(aUd)(bUc) + CR(bUc)(aUd) = 0
CD(aUd)(bUc) + CD(bUc)(aUd) = 0
Anyway nothing can be said without know the internal structure and the relations with in it. Society does serve many purposes. It enables production of goods far in excess of what individual can make on his own. The exchange of goods facilitates that a non-producer gets to consume the goods which he does not consume but gets them in exchange of goods he produces and money plays a vast role in it.
Let the claim of individual be represented by A1 A′
Here A1 A′ + ( A2 U A3 U …U An ) A1 ≠ 0 because A cannot make claims against individuals (as it is a collective society) though he can make a claim against them as one of them. The claim of the individual is weighed out by sheer numbers. U takes precedence over +. Let A be any individual from the point of society. So A = A1 and A = A2, and A = An . So we first we have to sum up the claims of the society which is equal to (n-1) A A1. The claim of A1 gets diluted because he is alone and his claim carries only 1/(n-1) weight where n is number of people in society. Thus
A1 A′ = A1 (n-1) A / (n-1)
A1 A′ = A1 A < (n-1)A A1
Thus, in a large collective society the individual becomes negligible and only the group identity emerges. The collective decisions rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment