Best Choice Principle

The current phallogocentric science of economics is premised on the notion that economic actors tend to do what is best for themselves and that the accumulation of selfish behaviors as limited by legislation means that this effectively serves the utilitarian common good as conceptualized as economic growth.


This is however based on further problematic assumptions including in particular the performative universalization of Eurocentric judicial conditions as well as no less the performative naturalization of technological conditions under Eurocentric Capitalism.

Capitalism is in practice (although not in theory) based on the idea that you can do anything you want as long as you do not seriously risk prosecution or losing litigation by others, meaning that it is even widely considered legitimate to break the law as long as not risking serious legal repercussions. This in turn is based on the secularist divorce between morality and law whereby human subjects of law must abide by prevailing judicial interpretations of law while making morality as limited by prevailing judicial interpretations of law a private/subjective matter indeed.

Capitalism as the practice of legally permitted direct/indirect mistreatment of others such employees (whether one’s own or those of others), customers, clients, partners, enslaved non-human persons, third parties or simply harming the environment is therefore premised on the socially constructed secualist divorce between morality and law. Explicitly religious systems of law do not have such a distinction as law and morality are the very same thing under explicitly religious systems of law. Secularism is originally an early medieval Catholic political doctrine as consecrated by the famous letter known as Duo Sunt from Catholic Pope Gelasius I to Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I in the year 494 Common Era.

The privatization of morality is certainly an important part of contemporary conceptions of freedom, open society and liberal democracy in ensuring some space for individual agency under law in allowing for individual choice in morality. If however morality and law were to be once more become more unified could that potentially very much risk have totalitarian social outcomes. While keeping this risk in mind should we nevertheless not accept the dichotomy between capitalist dystopia and totalitarian dystopia.

A very different judicial system of discourse would therefore need to allow for ethical individual choice without actually expecting ethical perfection of outcome in individual choice. This would be based on the economic best choice principle as not limited to self-interest but indeed ethically acting under law in the best interest of others as well. If the ethical conception of the best choice principle were to be legislated would human subjects of law not only begin to act far more ethically but we would have a different economic system indeed.

It is essential to understand that morality is variously socially constructed in different cultural/subcultural contexts and that ethics as defined as striving to realize the best choice principle would become socially hegemonic were it to be legislated as well as enforced by the judicial system. Thus if it became legally mandatory to strive to act as ethically as possible, then would institutions, government agencies, courts of law, private sector companies and of course individual human person largely perform their lives in accordance with the indeed highly reasonable best choice principle.

Just as capitalism is premised on a secularist conception of discourse of law so is capitalism also premised on hegemonic technologies and so were hegemonic technologies completely different would we probably also have a different economic system. This is already happening as the online economy is in fact substantially different from the economy IRL. E.g. is it common to offer services mostly for free and on top of that charge a fee for an optional “premium service”.

The technologic transition is happening with ever-increasing pace as indeed premised on the pace of technologic development. This has also led to the paradoxical condition of slowtech (i.e. not adopting existing advanced technologies) as indeed spreading from so called ‘developing countries’ to so called ‘developed countries’. Aside from existing and rapidly developing consumer digital technologies of communication and human-machine social interaction are two existing and quite advanced technologies central to this transition. The first is VR (virtual reality) and the second are 3D printers in constituting a nascent replication technology indeed as 3D printers may print out any material including metals and plastics.

Shopping in the economic era of VR and 3D printers will take a completely different form and shape than as of present. When shopping will we enter a virtual mall of choice and the stores present in the individually customized version of the mall will be tailored to our habits, choices and preferences indeed. Aside from perhaps vegetables will we not buy physical products as we will instead buy visual and technological designs. The chosen and purchased design will be instantly printed out by your privately owned 3D printer at home. Your 3D printer will even print out a new 3D printer if you either purchase one or choose a free version, e.g. a slightly older version that is no no longer protected by technological copyright legislation as protecting novelty in technology and design.

In the economic era of VR will most human beings work at home through VR, becoming educating at home through VR, receive medical care at home through VR and of course shop through VR. This will be a very different society economically speaking as there will literally be a global labor market without borders other than language and ever increasingly fewer permanent job positions to the point that permanent job positions will almost disappear.

Since this would be a highly globalized world in every respect would this pose the question whether law as of now would be based on physical locations rather than virtual location? Imagine one hundred persons from different jurisdictions interacting in a particular dating space of virtual reality. Each participant would need to balance the need for frankness and effectiveness in communication with the need for not engaging in what in legal terms could be construed as sexual harassment in their own jurisdiction of physical location IRL. This illustrates how VR will globalize even the law in deterritorialize law and instead increasingly virtualize law. Online private legislation is already seen in e.g. Facebook groups where the administrators “make the rules” and enforce them with threats of extrajudicial punishment.

Whether we like it or not will more and more portions of law become transferred to the wider domain of international law as dictated by economic laws of technologic change. There will thus increasingly be social spaces governed by international law (Facebook is a good example of a fully globalized digital space) as well as social spaces explicitly governed by national law, meaning that the individual participating person will become subject to laws of the physical jurisdiction of the digital space rather than her legal jurisdiction of personal physical presence IRL.

The economic era of capitalism is increasingly supplanted by the economic era of talentism whereby labor not requiring emotional innovation are increasingly all supplanted by ever-increasingly advanced technologies. This emerging new economic era as being very different from the previous capitalist one thus requires a very different discourse of legislation.

Parliaments need become developed and transformed by means of specialized directly elected chambers of parliament. This means that a legislative chamber will legislate law while an economic chamber will determine the extent of taxation as well as propose and approve the budget.

The legislative chamber of parliament would be tasked with profoundly discussing and developing axiomatic law, meaning that law would be reducible to highly ethical legislated axioms (principles, rights, obligations etc.). Para-Christian paragraphic law would thus become fully supplanted by axiomatic law. (The Christian Bible is subdivided into paragraphs and that is the historical origin of paragraphic law.) There would need to be a global legislative chamber of parliament as tasked with legislating international law and as national legislations of axiomatic law in different countries will come to increasingly ever more resemble each other will more and more domains of law inevitably become transferred from the national domain of legislation to the international domain of legislation.

The best choice principle would be a very essential part of axiomatic law in that we would be legally obliged to make choices out of the best interests of almost everyone/everything affected. If striving to act as ethically as possible is no longer merely a branding strategy but absolutely required by law will this fundamentally transform the world of business. This will importantly also transform interpersonal relations as structural oppression will effectively become criminalized and indeed so by legal default.

The best choice principle means making best available choices mandatory in terms of expected impact for everyone/everything impacted without requiring ethical perfection in outcome or for that matter permitting unethical practices of utilitarian sacrifice of persons whether human Animals or non-human persons. This means that the best choice principle will no longer as in phallogocentric economic science be limited to individual self-interest in enrichment and law abidance but also extended to seeking (despite not necessarily achieving) ethically optimal outcomes indeed.

The individual human or institutional collectively human actor would therefore need to be able and ready to explain the ethical rationale of her own behavior after the fact and this will importantly increasingly make people think before acting as well as avoid intoxication by drugs such as alcohol. As acting unethically will become distinctly unprofitable due to the legal and economic risks involved will the corporate code of conduct of private legislation become transformed from elective branding to absolute economic necessity indeed.

The private agency in individual determination of morality will thus become transformed from an effective right to abuse others and destroy the environment to an individual legal obligation in individual pursuit of ethics. The individual will therefore become ethically upgraded in being burdened with the immense responsibility and ethical yoke of ethico-political thinking in seeking although certainly not necessarily achieving optimal ethical outcomes. Axiomatic law would be based on determining which legislated axiom or axioms that should have precedence in any particular ethico-legal, indeed particular social context, meaning determining ethico-legal relevance indeed.

How will this affect the current individual space of individual choice in individual agency? Lifestyle choices will no longer merely be determined by simple individual preferences as the individual human person would have to make the effort to develop ethical agency as well. Persons who behave unethically in disregarding the effects of their own behaviors would certainly very much risk prosecution and indeed rightly so.

It is certainly essential that axiomatic law will also protect and ensure individual agency in choice in terms of allowing for diversity in differential ethico-legal choices and outcomes. Indeed, every aspect of jurisprudence and legislation needs become determined by different ethico-legal axioms, including an ethico-legal axiom protecting diversity in agency of ethico-legal choice and decision indeed.

The best choice principle as a central axiom of axiomatic law would ensure that individual and institutional/corporate pursuit yet not necessarily attainment of optimally ethical outcomes indeed becomes the social norm throughout human society. This will change the face of society and economics in human existence and a very different discourse of legislation is surely needed as the economic era of capitalism incrementally gives way to the emerging economic era of talentism.