If we assume an idilic scenario where humans, some hundreds of thousands of years ago, realised through reasoning that each could better acertain their needs through working together and forming societies, how might these societies have been constructed?
Various tasks would need attending to at these early stages of society: hunting, for example, along with preparation of food; possibly the contrustion of shelter; raising children; protection against rival species and other groups of humans, and so on. Different members of the society would be assigned different tasks, and each would stick to them in order to maximise efficiency. Idealy, some sort of fair system would nominate each member for their task: perhaps each could simply choose, but, in the likely case that this would result in an un-desireable distribution, perhaps each member could be assigned based on their skills, in which case, even if one was not so happy in their designated role, they would benefit from the system in the end, as it maximises productivity.
How, though, should one feel, if they have been assigned the task of constructing shelter, while others, who gather food, eat more than their fair share, since they inevitably control it for some length of time while others are busy at their particular activities? It goes without saying, that these construction workers would never have willingly joined this society, had they known that they would be dealt a short hand. Laws must be enforced to ensure that no member compromises the deal that lead to each joining. Humans signed up because they saw that they would come out with more food, shelter, and protection from dangers amongst other things. Each member now must harness some of their individual desires, not only for fear of punishment, but because they realise that following the laws is the only way that the society which offers them so much, can survive.
Now, some generations later, society reaches a stage of prosperity wherby food, shelter and protection are in such great supply, due to the development of tools and skills which makes their functioning much more effeicient. At this stage, each member could receive the same benefits as their ancestors, but with only a fraction of the work. The members therefore come up with a system whereby each can choose for themselves how much they work, and they will reap benefit accordingly. A system of tokens is established: members will receive tokens according to the hours they work, and the difficulty of the job on which they work. Members who have worked harder and thus accumilated more tokens can buy more food, and grander shelters among other things that society or individuals have produced.
Some people may end up working on the large house of another member, before retiring each evening to their own smaller house, but they will have no complaints. They know that they could also have this, if they chose to work harder, or if they had a big idea. They continue to obey the laws because the system is the same one that they agreed to some years ago: the one which turns his work into far more reward then they could ever hope for if they went it alone in the wild, and no less then any other member would receive as a result of the same smount of work.
Infact, even if a stage comes where food becomes scarce, and only those who have accumulated vast numbers of tokens can afford it, they may sooner obey the laws and starve to death, even whilst working to gather food that they cannot afford, then go against the deal, and steal or kill. This state of affairs was always a possibility, but they agreed to the deal on level terms with those who they now starve to provide for. A decent member will accept this turn of events, as a loosing chess player, who has long since forgone any chance of winning, continues to the very end, affording their oponent the satisfaction of a proper victory, because they know that they would have expected the same, after the deal the agreed to before the match.
A fair deal can lead humans with a sense of justice to accept the most unequal of circumstances. Should that deal vanish, however, and the circumstances become no less then as they appear on the surface.
Imagine, now, that in a certain society, an annual lottery is held, whereby any member may choose to purchase a ticket for a large portion of their tokens: say, three quarters of them, for example, in the hope that they may be the lucky ticket holder to win a life changing fortune. It goes without saying, that any loosing member with any decency, should have no grievences towards society, even though they are now poor and, depending on the prosperity of that society, may not be able to afford decent shelter or food. However, one would almost certainly not be happy if someone else took their money without their knowing, and bought a ticket on their behalf, and lost. This grievence would surely extend towards society, if it allowed this to happen with no punishment to the offender, and no compensation for the victim. But, in our little society which we have developed a picture of, just this sort of thing happens with each new generation. When a young members parents die, they receive all of the tokens and posetions that they had accumilated, inevitably leaving different young members, none of whome have done any work yet, in drasticaly different circumstances, depending on how hard their parents, or their parents? parents, and so on, had worked. Now what seemed like an absolutely fair society, hampered only by the discrepencies in each members genes, has a major flaw. As stated earlier, members may accept the most seeminly unjust circumstances, if they come about by a completely fair system which they agreed to. There is no reason, however, why a new member should accept these circumstances, and continue to obey the laws, if their circumstances came about by a system which their great, great grandfather agreed to. If the members of this new generation were left to start afresh a new society, then this is not what they would come up with, unless some were forced into it by the physical power of others. This is, of course, unless the sense of justice operates in a different way in other humans as it does in me: perhaps some people feel it is fair that they should be left with nothing after loosing in a lottery which someone else put them in for, afterall, the lottery itself was a fair system, whether or not they agreed to it. I will continue, though, as if my sense of justice is, for the most part, prevailent amongst humans today.
If we propagate this system a large number of generations ahead, we will likely come out with a scenario which approximates that found, a few hundred years ago, in what we now know as ?developed? countries, and that found in many other countries still today. A system where different classes exist in a society, seperated by a vast disparity in wealth and opportunities which makes migration between the classes almost impossible. While this is the result of a system which can make a mutilated claim at being just, the reality, is that members of these societies should have no moral obligation to live by it?s laws, since they did not agree to the deal in the first place. Such a society, therefore, can only run by restraining the lower classes by physical power or by keeping them in a state of ignorance. Either way, the lower classes of these societies work as slaves for the higher classes. This is not necessarily ?morally wrong?, as long as the lower classes are not considered to be members of the society, but are rather considered clearly as the slaves they are, but the lower classes should be under no illusion of being on the same side as their captors, and should feel absolutely no moral obligation to live by their laws.
This claim can of course be disputed, if the society in question does not forcibly prevent members who choose to do so, to leave, and make their own way in the wild, but this ceases to be a viable excuse for a number of reasons. Firstly, most members are likely to become deeply attatched to the society which they grow up in, before they are able to see that it is against them. In this sense, they are mentaly restrained from leaving if not physicaly. Secondly, the society may have reached a state where it has so engulfed the land around it, that there ceases to be a ?nature? which the disilussioned member may retreat to, without being accused of trespassing, stealing and so on. Lastly, society may still offer a better deal in some ways, then the lower class member may expect to get in nature. This means that this member may choose to accept the very unfair deal, but this does not change the fact that the society is using him, and is not by any means on his side. Once again, the lower classes, in this case should surely feel no moral obligation since, while they agreed to the deal, and while the deal benefits them, the deal treats them unfairly, and is not on their side. They are being used by the deal, and they should feel no ways about using it, and going against it as best fits them.
Bizarely enough, such a system existed only a few hundred years ago in the societies in which we live now and tend to accept. What has changed to remove them from the barbaric situation described in the above paragraphs? Supposedly, one of the main changes is in opportunities. Society must be pretty much fair for each new generation if every member has the same opportunities as the next. The problem here with modern ?developed? societies is that while each member can, in theory, achieve the same things as another, some are given far higher chances. The education system is meant to level the field by qualifying each hardworking and able member for the highly paid jobs, but in reality, it does no such thing. For a start, without going into any detail, the quality of education in most public schools is very poor, and certainly doesn?t equip many student with the skills they need for any highly paid profession. It makes up little ground in helping students understand themselves and the world around them. The only way it may be seen to help is by allowing students to demonstrate their skills, abilities and work ethic, that they might be accepted into an education system which might acctually educate them. Still here though, it takes someone from a poor, uneducated background, to have outstanding character and ability, if they are to use the public education system to get into a decent other education system. This is less so for a child from a more wealthy and educated family. While a child of midling character and ability from a less afluent background may fail to make it to a grammar school or to a decent university, the same child in a more prosperous family may succeed as a result of being sent to a private school, or receiving private tuition while being sent to a public school. This is not to mention the impact of simply being raised in a cultured environment.
Furthermore, education aside, children from certain backgrounds may be given opportunities which can only be bought with money or connections. Opportunities asside even, children from certain backgrounds may simply be given many of the luxuries which others have to work for (if they are lucky enough to be presented even with that opportunity).
Why then, should someone who is born into a poor and uneducated family, thus (assuming they are without outstanding ability and character), holding little chance of a satisfying life, accept the laws of the society? Surely not for any moral reasons, but for fear of punishment, for ignorance, and for lack of an alternative. What then is their position? It would be easy to say that they are slaves, just as in the other societies, exept in this case, with a meager chance, depending on their genes, of gaining a satisfactory life and significant benefit from living in the society. However, in many cases, upper society does not benefit from these lower classes, since it ends up paying for their poor education, their rent, food and small living allowence, along with their health care amogst other things, often receiving little or nothing in return. What, then, is the position of the lower classes? It seems like they are treated in a similar way to pets: they are trained to live with some lowly manners in society, given just enough to survive on and are expected to give nothing in return except their company and to provide some amusement for their owners. In many cases they are given plenty of opportunities to escape, but they have been trained to be completely dependent on their masters.
Otherwise, and more likely to be the reality, the higher classes keep them in this way in order to prevent them from rebelling and collapsing the system from which they prosper. In purely practical terms, of course, it would better for them to simply treat them as rival apes, and hence force them to work as slaves, or kill them, but as a result of feelings of human fellowship, among them, the middle classes, or both, they choose this option instead. Come to think of it though, just a few hundred years ago they pretty much did force them to work as slaves, but, as stated previously, it turned into what we now tend to see as just about acceptable. Now we have analysed what the current predicament is however, we can guess that it has turned into this not as a matter of becoming more fair, but as a matter either of pity from the upper classes, or from the middle classes who could then pressure these changes from the upper; or from a growing awareness in the lower classes of the reality of the situation, which made them more likely to rebel, thus calling for some appeasement.
As is hopefuly clear though, now, the current state of affairs is by no means acceptable for different reasons depending on which light you view it in. If you feel indescriminent human comradship, then it cannot be acceptable to keep these people at the bottom of the pile while appeasing them just enough for them not to rebel. If you see them as rival apes who would do the same to you if they had the chance (or maybe they wouldn?t, but you?re going to do it anyway; in the same way one is willing to kill and eat cows), then atleast for the sake of honesty to yourself, make no pretences about what you?re doing.
Tending to feel a sense of human comraderie myself, it seems that the solution must be to make a society which anyone could join and feel that they are being dealt a fair hand. No one should be forced to join however, and naturaly, any outsiders would be treated peacefuly, following my sense of human comraderie, unless they took it upon themselves to pose an aggressive threat to our own society. For the society to be fair, it must be built around the principle of each member getting out of society an appropriate proportion depending on what they put in. Obviously, this means that the quality of childhood can not be dependent on the prosperity of the parents, and it also means that parents may not pass on their posessions to their children when they die. All of the posessions of the dead must go strait back to the state and then be distributed throughout the society, each member receiving a proportion dictated by the level of work that they choose to put in.
Every child born into the society must be educated from a very young age to understand their options so that they may make an enlightened decision on wether or not to live by the laws of this society. Outsiders must also be informed of the deal on offer and invited in.
The deal is based on an evolved version of the original fictional society at the beginning of the text. At the most basic level, each member is assigned a task (chosen by picking straws, based on skill or what ever method is most appropriate), which they will work on as much as is necessary for stable lifestyle conditions to be reached. Members can vote on what tasks they deem most necessary at any one time. No one is allowed to take more then their fare-share. Produce will be distributed as evenly as possible.
At the next level, once the lifestyle conditions are stable and beyond, every member may choose how much, and on what they work, and they will in turn receive a share of the work of other members accordingly. A system of tokens is implemented for this. Each job has an hourly rate of tokens depending on the difficulty of the job and how much skill or previous training the job requires. The number of tokens in circulation depends on the amount of produce, there will always be enough tokens to buy all of the produce. If the society produces just enough for every member to live comfortably, then it would not be practical to use the token system because there would be no need choice. If tokens were used in this scenario however, a constant amount would be in circulation. Each member would work each day for the amount of tokens that they will then have to spend immediately in order to live comfortably. These tokens then would return to the state to be distributed for the next days work.
If society produces an excess, then more tokens will be distributed, enough to buy all of the produce. Now each member, after a days work, will have enough tokens to live comfotably, and some to spare. These tokens can be spent on excess food or housing, or on good produced by other members independently.
The land is free for anybody to use, as long as it is used within the guidelines of the state (for environmental reasons for example). No member has any security in the land he is using however, unless he buys it. So, if one wanted earn a living as an independent farmer, they would have to buy the land that they wish to farm, otherwise another member may also farm and profit from the land that the other has prepared. This is no great handicap, though, because there is no reason that land should not be purchased by anyone who is willing to work. Imagine, for instance, this society occupies fifty square miles of land, bounded by the borders of other societies. While some of this land must be kept free for everyone to use, i.e. for transport, communal events and so on, the rest can, in a sense, be distributed proportionately among all members, depending on how much they work. Of course, at this point, it also depends on their particular priorities: someone who wanted to be a farmer, for example, might work for sometime in a state-organised establishment, and, where someone else might buy a small amount of land and spend the rest of their money on excess food, this person might live on a normal amount of food, and spend the rest on more land.
A small problem needs to be solved here. If we removed the token system again, and every member worked the same amount and received an equal distribution of the same things that everyone else would get, then each would be given their portion of the societies land straight away, unless one stopped working, thus removing themselves from the society. If, however, every member was allowed to choose what quantities of each commodity they received, as long as it amounted to the same in quantity as it would be if everyone was given the same, then how much food would one have to give up to gain x amount of land? If we assume that there is an excess of land, i.e. more then is likely to be used if everyone used as much as they could, then the land can be assumed to be owned by the state until bought by an individual. But this price will be remarkably low: depending on the amount of excess commodity, it might take one member only a few days of excess wages to aquire a significant amount of land. In this case,
Various tasks would need attending to at these early stages of society: hunting, for example, along with preparation of food; possibly the contrustion of shelter; raising children; protection against rival species and other groups of humans, and so on. Different members of the society would be assigned different tasks, and each would stick to them in order to maximise efficiency. Idealy, some sort of fair system would nominate each member for their task: perhaps each could simply choose, but, in the likely case that this would result in an un-desireable distribution, perhaps each member could be assigned based on their skills, in which case, even if one was not so happy in their designated role, they would benefit from the system in the end, as it maximises productivity.
How, though, should one feel, if they have been assigned the task of constructing shelter, while others, who gather food, eat more than their fair share, since they inevitably control it for some length of time while others are busy at their particular activities? It goes without saying, that these construction workers would never have willingly joined this society, had they known that they would be dealt a short hand. Laws must be enforced to ensure that no member compromises the deal that lead to each joining. Humans signed up because they saw that they would come out with more food, shelter, and protection from dangers amongst other things. Each member now must harness some of their individual desires, not only for fear of punishment, but because they realise that following the laws is the only way that the society which offers them so much, can survive.
Now, some generations later, society reaches a stage of prosperity wherby food, shelter and protection are in such great supply, due to the development of tools and skills which makes their functioning much more effeicient. At this stage, each member could receive the same benefits as their ancestors, but with only a fraction of the work. The members therefore come up with a system whereby each can choose for themselves how much they work, and they will reap benefit accordingly. A system of tokens is established: members will receive tokens according to the hours they work, and the difficulty of the job on which they work. Members who have worked harder and thus accumilated more tokens can buy more food, and grander shelters among other things that society or individuals have produced.
Some people may end up working on the large house of another member, before retiring each evening to their own smaller house, but they will have no complaints. They know that they could also have this, if they chose to work harder, or if they had a big idea. They continue to obey the laws because the system is the same one that they agreed to some years ago: the one which turns his work into far more reward then they could ever hope for if they went it alone in the wild, and no less then any other member would receive as a result of the same smount of work.
Infact, even if a stage comes where food becomes scarce, and only those who have accumulated vast numbers of tokens can afford it, they may sooner obey the laws and starve to death, even whilst working to gather food that they cannot afford, then go against the deal, and steal or kill. This state of affairs was always a possibility, but they agreed to the deal on level terms with those who they now starve to provide for. A decent member will accept this turn of events, as a loosing chess player, who has long since forgone any chance of winning, continues to the very end, affording their oponent the satisfaction of a proper victory, because they know that they would have expected the same, after the deal the agreed to before the match.
A fair deal can lead humans with a sense of justice to accept the most unequal of circumstances. Should that deal vanish, however, and the circumstances become no less then as they appear on the surface.
Imagine, now, that in a certain society, an annual lottery is held, whereby any member may choose to purchase a ticket for a large portion of their tokens: say, three quarters of them, for example, in the hope that they may be the lucky ticket holder to win a life changing fortune. It goes without saying, that any loosing member with any decency, should have no grievences towards society, even though they are now poor and, depending on the prosperity of that society, may not be able to afford decent shelter or food. However, one would almost certainly not be happy if someone else took their money without their knowing, and bought a ticket on their behalf, and lost. This grievence would surely extend towards society, if it allowed this to happen with no punishment to the offender, and no compensation for the victim. But, in our little society which we have developed a picture of, just this sort of thing happens with each new generation. When a young members parents die, they receive all of the tokens and posetions that they had accumilated, inevitably leaving different young members, none of whome have done any work yet, in drasticaly different circumstances, depending on how hard their parents, or their parents? parents, and so on, had worked. Now what seemed like an absolutely fair society, hampered only by the discrepencies in each members genes, has a major flaw. As stated earlier, members may accept the most seeminly unjust circumstances, if they come about by a completely fair system which they agreed to. There is no reason, however, why a new member should accept these circumstances, and continue to obey the laws, if their circumstances came about by a system which their great, great grandfather agreed to. If the members of this new generation were left to start afresh a new society, then this is not what they would come up with, unless some were forced into it by the physical power of others. This is, of course, unless the sense of justice operates in a different way in other humans as it does in me: perhaps some people feel it is fair that they should be left with nothing after loosing in a lottery which someone else put them in for, afterall, the lottery itself was a fair system, whether or not they agreed to it. I will continue, though, as if my sense of justice is, for the most part, prevailent amongst humans today.
If we propagate this system a large number of generations ahead, we will likely come out with a scenario which approximates that found, a few hundred years ago, in what we now know as ?developed? countries, and that found in many other countries still today. A system where different classes exist in a society, seperated by a vast disparity in wealth and opportunities which makes migration between the classes almost impossible. While this is the result of a system which can make a mutilated claim at being just, the reality, is that members of these societies should have no moral obligation to live by it?s laws, since they did not agree to the deal in the first place. Such a society, therefore, can only run by restraining the lower classes by physical power or by keeping them in a state of ignorance. Either way, the lower classes of these societies work as slaves for the higher classes. This is not necessarily ?morally wrong?, as long as the lower classes are not considered to be members of the society, but are rather considered clearly as the slaves they are, but the lower classes should be under no illusion of being on the same side as their captors, and should feel absolutely no moral obligation to live by their laws.
This claim can of course be disputed, if the society in question does not forcibly prevent members who choose to do so, to leave, and make their own way in the wild, but this ceases to be a viable excuse for a number of reasons. Firstly, most members are likely to become deeply attatched to the society which they grow up in, before they are able to see that it is against them. In this sense, they are mentaly restrained from leaving if not physicaly. Secondly, the society may have reached a state where it has so engulfed the land around it, that there ceases to be a ?nature? which the disilussioned member may retreat to, without being accused of trespassing, stealing and so on. Lastly, society may still offer a better deal in some ways, then the lower class member may expect to get in nature. This means that this member may choose to accept the very unfair deal, but this does not change the fact that the society is using him, and is not by any means on his side. Once again, the lower classes, in this case should surely feel no moral obligation since, while they agreed to the deal, and while the deal benefits them, the deal treats them unfairly, and is not on their side. They are being used by the deal, and they should feel no ways about using it, and going against it as best fits them.
Bizarely enough, such a system existed only a few hundred years ago in the societies in which we live now and tend to accept. What has changed to remove them from the barbaric situation described in the above paragraphs? Supposedly, one of the main changes is in opportunities. Society must be pretty much fair for each new generation if every member has the same opportunities as the next. The problem here with modern ?developed? societies is that while each member can, in theory, achieve the same things as another, some are given far higher chances. The education system is meant to level the field by qualifying each hardworking and able member for the highly paid jobs, but in reality, it does no such thing. For a start, without going into any detail, the quality of education in most public schools is very poor, and certainly doesn?t equip many student with the skills they need for any highly paid profession. It makes up little ground in helping students understand themselves and the world around them. The only way it may be seen to help is by allowing students to demonstrate their skills, abilities and work ethic, that they might be accepted into an education system which might acctually educate them. Still here though, it takes someone from a poor, uneducated background, to have outstanding character and ability, if they are to use the public education system to get into a decent other education system. This is less so for a child from a more wealthy and educated family. While a child of midling character and ability from a less afluent background may fail to make it to a grammar school or to a decent university, the same child in a more prosperous family may succeed as a result of being sent to a private school, or receiving private tuition while being sent to a public school. This is not to mention the impact of simply being raised in a cultured environment.
Furthermore, education aside, children from certain backgrounds may be given opportunities which can only be bought with money or connections. Opportunities asside even, children from certain backgrounds may simply be given many of the luxuries which others have to work for (if they are lucky enough to be presented even with that opportunity).
Why then, should someone who is born into a poor and uneducated family, thus (assuming they are without outstanding ability and character), holding little chance of a satisfying life, accept the laws of the society? Surely not for any moral reasons, but for fear of punishment, for ignorance, and for lack of an alternative. What then is their position? It would be easy to say that they are slaves, just as in the other societies, exept in this case, with a meager chance, depending on their genes, of gaining a satisfactory life and significant benefit from living in the society. However, in many cases, upper society does not benefit from these lower classes, since it ends up paying for their poor education, their rent, food and small living allowence, along with their health care amogst other things, often receiving little or nothing in return. What, then, is the position of the lower classes? It seems like they are treated in a similar way to pets: they are trained to live with some lowly manners in society, given just enough to survive on and are expected to give nothing in return except their company and to provide some amusement for their owners. In many cases they are given plenty of opportunities to escape, but they have been trained to be completely dependent on their masters.
Otherwise, and more likely to be the reality, the higher classes keep them in this way in order to prevent them from rebelling and collapsing the system from which they prosper. In purely practical terms, of course, it would better for them to simply treat them as rival apes, and hence force them to work as slaves, or kill them, but as a result of feelings of human fellowship, among them, the middle classes, or both, they choose this option instead. Come to think of it though, just a few hundred years ago they pretty much did force them to work as slaves, but, as stated previously, it turned into what we now tend to see as just about acceptable. Now we have analysed what the current predicament is however, we can guess that it has turned into this not as a matter of becoming more fair, but as a matter either of pity from the upper classes, or from the middle classes who could then pressure these changes from the upper; or from a growing awareness in the lower classes of the reality of the situation, which made them more likely to rebel, thus calling for some appeasement.
As is hopefuly clear though, now, the current state of affairs is by no means acceptable for different reasons depending on which light you view it in. If you feel indescriminent human comradship, then it cannot be acceptable to keep these people at the bottom of the pile while appeasing them just enough for them not to rebel. If you see them as rival apes who would do the same to you if they had the chance (or maybe they wouldn?t, but you?re going to do it anyway; in the same way one is willing to kill and eat cows), then atleast for the sake of honesty to yourself, make no pretences about what you?re doing.
Tending to feel a sense of human comraderie myself, it seems that the solution must be to make a society which anyone could join and feel that they are being dealt a fair hand. No one should be forced to join however, and naturaly, any outsiders would be treated peacefuly, following my sense of human comraderie, unless they took it upon themselves to pose an aggressive threat to our own society. For the society to be fair, it must be built around the principle of each member getting out of society an appropriate proportion depending on what they put in. Obviously, this means that the quality of childhood can not be dependent on the prosperity of the parents, and it also means that parents may not pass on their posessions to their children when they die. All of the posessions of the dead must go strait back to the state and then be distributed throughout the society, each member receiving a proportion dictated by the level of work that they choose to put in.
Every child born into the society must be educated from a very young age to understand their options so that they may make an enlightened decision on wether or not to live by the laws of this society. Outsiders must also be informed of the deal on offer and invited in.
The deal is based on an evolved version of the original fictional society at the beginning of the text. At the most basic level, each member is assigned a task (chosen by picking straws, based on skill or what ever method is most appropriate), which they will work on as much as is necessary for stable lifestyle conditions to be reached. Members can vote on what tasks they deem most necessary at any one time. No one is allowed to take more then their fare-share. Produce will be distributed as evenly as possible.
At the next level, once the lifestyle conditions are stable and beyond, every member may choose how much, and on what they work, and they will in turn receive a share of the work of other members accordingly. A system of tokens is implemented for this. Each job has an hourly rate of tokens depending on the difficulty of the job and how much skill or previous training the job requires. The number of tokens in circulation depends on the amount of produce, there will always be enough tokens to buy all of the produce. If the society produces just enough for every member to live comfortably, then it would not be practical to use the token system because there would be no need choice. If tokens were used in this scenario however, a constant amount would be in circulation. Each member would work each day for the amount of tokens that they will then have to spend immediately in order to live comfortably. These tokens then would return to the state to be distributed for the next days work.
If society produces an excess, then more tokens will be distributed, enough to buy all of the produce. Now each member, after a days work, will have enough tokens to live comfotably, and some to spare. These tokens can be spent on excess food or housing, or on good produced by other members independently.
The land is free for anybody to use, as long as it is used within the guidelines of the state (for environmental reasons for example). No member has any security in the land he is using however, unless he buys it. So, if one wanted earn a living as an independent farmer, they would have to buy the land that they wish to farm, otherwise another member may also farm and profit from the land that the other has prepared. This is no great handicap, though, because there is no reason that land should not be purchased by anyone who is willing to work. Imagine, for instance, this society occupies fifty square miles of land, bounded by the borders of other societies. While some of this land must be kept free for everyone to use, i.e. for transport, communal events and so on, the rest can, in a sense, be distributed proportionately among all members, depending on how much they work. Of course, at this point, it also depends on their particular priorities: someone who wanted to be a farmer, for example, might work for sometime in a state-organised establishment, and, where someone else might buy a small amount of land and spend the rest of their money on excess food, this person might live on a normal amount of food, and spend the rest on more land.
A small problem needs to be solved here. If we removed the token system again, and every member worked the same amount and received an equal distribution of the same things that everyone else would get, then each would be given their portion of the societies land straight away, unless one stopped working, thus removing themselves from the society. If, however, every member was allowed to choose what quantities of each commodity they received, as long as it amounted to the same in quantity as it would be if everyone was given the same, then how much food would one have to give up to gain x amount of land? If we assume that there is an excess of land, i.e. more then is likely to be used if everyone used as much as they could, then the land can be assumed to be owned by the state until bought by an individual. But this price will be remarkably low: depending on the amount of excess commodity, it might take one member only a few days of excess wages to aquire a significant amount of land. In this case,
