Harmonizing Motives
Comments and criticisms are very welcome
Is it okay to fight for what is right? If the answer is no, then the implication is that fighting itself is wrong. If the answer is yes, then the implication is that the enemy is fighting for what is wrong, which implies that the enemy believes that the "legal" definition of "right", is wrong. In either case, the implied need is for people to pursue agreement on what is right.
The purpose of this essay is to suggest a way to enthrone the pursuit of agreement as the principle authority for determining what is right. To enthrone this Principle of all principles, is the only way to avoid enthroning people who compete for the authority to forcefully determine what is right, thereby motivating an evolving competition which often turns to conflict, fighting, and war.
In this age of nearly instant worldwide communication, enabling very rapid very radical change, it might be possible to actually enthrone the pursuit of universal agreement as the Principle of all principles.
Does an election enthrone the pursuit of agreement? Doesn't it depend on whether of not the winner of the election is awarded the authority to coercively overpower the losers? Should a simple majority have the authority to force their opinion on what is "right", on to the minority? Wouldn't that mean that majority rule is the same as minority enslavement?
If so, then elections motivate people to divide into competing factions whose intention is to overpower the competition, thereby enthroning the pursuit of conquest instead of agreement, which magnifies the power struggle.
If not, then some principle is needed, which is no respecter of persons. That principle must stand by itself so that neither a majority nor a minority can take its place. And that principle needs to be agreeable to all people and all factions. It must be universal agreement.
And so, elections, without enthroning the Principle of all principles, have the effect of motivating agreement within factions, but the purpose of factional agreements is to overpower opposing factions, rather than to pursue agreement with them. And so, the more coercive authority that the elected officials receive, the less agreement there is, and more magnified becomes the struggle for coercive power.
The current belief seems to be that coercive authority is needed in order for people to have intelligent guidance. Without intelligent guidance coercively enforced, free people would not know what they are doing, and would therefore end up damaging each others' well being without knowing how to avoid it.
The answer to that argument is that if the pursuit of universal agreement was enthroned as the Principle of all principles, our natural need for intelligent leadership would motivate both the supply and demand for intelligent leadership. Leaders whose true purpose is to formulate universally agreeable guidance, would be motivated to emerge and offer their services to all who are motivated to pursue universal agreement. This is in contrast with power struggling "leaders" whose first priority is to gain the power of coercive authority before they can lead as they desire. The enthronement of the pursuit of universal agreement would instead provide the natural compulsion needed to bring out and follow true leadership.
Some people might believe that universal agreement is impossible. If so, then the best we can do is try to come as close to it as possible, by enthroning the pursuit of it as the Principle of all principles.
Therefore, in order to reduce and hopefully end the world's history of recurring conflict, fighting, and war, there must be a way for the prevailing opinion to become this Principle of all principles -- the Universal Pursuit of Universal Agreement.
To enthrone the pursuit of universal agreement, there must be a way for any disagreement to be identified, investigated, and debated with the idea that the case will not be settled until a universally agreeable settlement is reached. All people, instead of resorting to coercive force when they disagree, will thereby be motivated to search for their own mistaken opinion which they are willing to correct, in order to agree with their adversary who is likewise motivated to do the same. All people would be compelled by this Principle of all principles, to acknowledge that different points of view must be investigated and understood.
If agreement seems impossible to be reached, then there must be a way to select arbiters who would have the authority to formulate a settlement which would be coercively enforced. But in order to avoid power struggles, there must be no way for anyone to deliberately become an arbiter, or to successfully coerce an arbiter.
And the arbiters must somehow be subject to the Principle, thereby making sure that their actions and rulings are agreeable to all who agree with the Principle. This would motivate the arbiters to seek advice from all available experts who have studied the art of formulating universally agreeable settlements, and have proven that ability.
The pursuit of universal agreement thereby rewards the pursuit of the intelligence, fairness, and justice that truly satisfies every individual person.
Here is how it might be done:
Every person would always have the option to call for arbitration against any other person for any reason. And this means that even the arbiters themselves, their expert advisers, and all officials could be called to a subsequent arbitration by anyone who disagrees with anything about their actions or rulings.
After having tried and failed to agree with his adversary, a person might call the police, requesting arbitration - his last resort. The police, knowing that they themselves could be called for arbitration by anyone who accused them of any kind of unfairness, would then be motivated to take universally agreeable steps to make sure that the accuser and accused appeared for arbitration at a time set by the chief of police, who would also know that he too could be called for arbitration by anyone.
A panel of 7 arbiters would then be selected completely at random from a list that they had voluntarily signed up on, thereby preventing anyone from deliberately becoming an arbiter. The arbiters would have 20 days to make a ruling involving as many as 50 people of their designation. After the 20 days, they would no longer be arbiters, thereby being vulnerable to being accused and called to a subsequent arbitration.
The arbiters, knowing that they too are vulnerable to being accused of any kind of unfairness, and subsequently after the 20 days, being called for arbitration, would be motivated to seek advice from experts who have proven their ability to formulate universally agreeable settlements.
The arbiters would have the authority to immediately call for the arrest and confinement of anyone who attempted to coerce the arbiters, and would judge them as part of their case.
The experts, knowing that they too are vulnerable to subsequent arbitration, would investigate the case and recommend settlements. Then the arbiters would, by unanimous vote, approve the official settlement for the case.
The official settlement would be enforced, coercively if necessary, for a period of 6 months or until all concerned happened to mutually agree on some other settlement. The only exception to this would be if the settlement sent a person to prison. In that case, the only way the person could get out of prison would be for someone to call for a new arbitration, and the new arbitration rules that the prisoner should then be released.
Coercion would therefore be used only to negate the attempted coercion of anyone who refuses to pursue universal agreement.
The numbers, 7 arbiters, 20 days to resolve, 50 people, and 6 months of enforcement, are just my own guess as to what would motivate everyone to try to avoid arbitration by pursuing true universal agreement. They could be whatever is agreed on when the system is set up. Other details, such as how to make random selections would need to be worked out by other experts.
You might think that this idea might sound fine, but human beings, as we have always known them, would never agree to such an idea. But think again. Think of all that is going on right now, which five years ago we would have never have dreamed that it could actually happen. In this age of nearly instant worldwide communication, radical changes can take place very fast. Doesn't it make sense that people change according to how they are motivated by our evolving awareness?
Can you think of a way that this random arbiter system could be corrupted so that it motivated anything other than the pursuit of universal agreement? Analyze again the logic of it:
1. The randomly selected arbiters would have to act and rule in universally agreeable ways in order to avoid being accused and called to a subsequent arbitration after they have finished their own 20 days of arbitration. The subsequent arbitration would be settled by 7 new arbiters selected completely at random, who would have the same need to act and rule in a universally agreeable way.
2. In order to act and rule in universally agreeable ways, randomly selected arbiters would need to seek advice from experts who have proven their ability to formulate universally agreeable settlements.
3. In order for anyone to be an expert advisor, able to formulate universally agreeable settlements, the person would need to seek out and negotiate with expert representatives of every concerned interest group who, likewise, are seeking universal agreement. This need would motivate the most universally agreeable leaders to come forward and be recognized, respected, and compensated in universally agreeable ways.
4. Under the above described circumstances, no minority could be oppressed or suppressed in any way, because one honest disagreement on the part of any single person would eliminate the usefulness of whatever arrangement is in dispute. The sincere experts would respond by finding some settlement that is agreeable to all concerned. In order to reach such agreement, all concerned would need to be honest and to forsake all unfair prejudice.
5. Since arbiters would have unlimited authority for the case that they are called to arbitrate, they would have authority to penalize anyone who stands in the way of the universal pursuit of universal agreement. Therefore, accusers as well as the accused, would need to forsake all prejudice in order to pursue universal agreement. The same would be true of anyone who might try to bribe or threaten anyone in any way. They arbiters could penalize them immediately. All who defy the pursuit of universal agreement would be dealt with in a universally agreeable way.
6. Arbiters could not abuse their authority in any way, because of their need to act and rule in universally agreeable ways in order to avoid being penalized by subsequent calls for arbitration. Instead of trying to work within artificially made laws, finding loopholes and manipulating procedures, they would have to find some way to avoid offending anyone who is in turn pursuing universal agreement. They would be watched by experts of all interests who could not be fooled. Any of them could call for a subsequent arbitration against any arbiter who acted or ruled contrary to the ruling Principle -- the universal pursuit of universal agreement.
7. Anyone contemplating making a call for arbitration, would need to honestly forsake all prejudice in order to avoid making a disagreeable call which would result in themselves being penalized.
8. Expert advisors would have reason to find ways to advise people on what would constitute an agreeable call for arbitration, but they could not conspire to suppress any interest group, since their usefulness to the randomly selected arbiters would depend on their ability to discover agreement with expert representatives of every interest group. Experts from the diverse interest groups would watch each other. Though they might fool some people, they could not fool competing experts who would not hesitate to call them to arbitration.
9. The only criteria that would qualify any person as "expert" would be his ability to find universally agreeable settlements. One single disagreement by any honest adversary, would reduce his usefulness.
Would there be a nuisance of frivolous calls for arbitration?
Suppose first, that any person would always have the option to call for arbitration against any other person, for any reason. We would then leave it up to the arbiters and their chosen advisors to determine which of the mutual adversaries is refusing to pursue true universal agreement on what is fair, and what to do about it. The possibility that the arbiters would make a ruling that would penalize any frivolous or unnecessary call for arbitration, would thereby deter people from abusing this option.
Who would determine whether a randomly selected person is qualified to be an arbiter?
The spirit of the pursuit of universal agreement begins with the totally random selection of arbiters, so that everyone has a totally equal chance of becoming an arbiter for whatever case is in question, and so that no one can struggle his way into the position of arbiter. Then the only way to be sure of having an arbiter that rules as you desire, would be to mold your desires in such a way as to be agreeable to any and all people.
No arbiter could abuse his temporary authority without being arbitrated against after he has finished arbitrating his own case. This prospect deters anyone who doubts his own qualifications from accepting the role of arbiter. If a randomly selected arbiter disqualifies himself, then another random selection would take his place. No one but the randomly selected person himself, could disqualify himself. People could also disqualify themselves by crossing their names off of the list of prospective arbiters, or by not signing up in the first place. Or they could, at their own sole discretion, declare themselves to be qualified by signing up on the list. People who care about each other, would be free to advise each other. But the final decision as to whether any person is qualified, would remain solely up to that person.
You might doubt whether anyone would dare to take on the role as arbiter. But we know from experience that there are many people who are caring enough and idealistic enough and faithful enough to take risks for the sake of things that they truly believe.
Law
You might be wondering about law. In order for this arbitration procedure to work, it would need the authority to overrule any application of law. Would this leave us without laws? No, but it would change laws into guidelines. Guidelines are needed so that we can know what we can and cannot do without offending each other.
The difference between a law and a guideline is that the law is coercively enforced according to its letter, whereas a guideline serves to point the way according to its spirit. No matter how many laws there might be, there will always be loopholes which enable manipulators to violate the spirit without violating the letter. But when power is dissipated by this harmonizing resolution procedure, the spirit of all guidelines would be the sincere seeking of universally agreeable fairness. There could be no loopholes because anyone could always challenge the application of a guideline whenever it violates the spirit, and the arbiters would always have to rule according to the spirit of universal agreement, in order to avoid themselves being penalized by subsequent arbitration.
Knowing this, you would never hear any official say, "I have no choice, because the law requires me to do this," knowing that what he is doing is contrary to what is expected by anyone who honestly pursues universal agreement. The spirit of universal agreement would over rule the letter every time, because anyone with the spirit could always call for arbitration against anyone who tried to violate the spirit.
Planning.
Government as we have known it, does many things that might really need to be done in order for people to be able to live and let live peacefully and comfortably. Such things as zoning, regulation of traffic, regulation of commerce, environmental protection, help for needy people, and so on, are issues that many people feel very strongly about. You might fear that a random arbiter procedure does not specifically provide for these things. But think some more. This harmonizing arbitration procedure would provide for a universal motive to act in ways that are as universally agreeable as possible. The procedure would do absolutely nothing to inhibit any effort to organize for mutual benefit. But the procedure would prevent any organization from evolving into a desire to exalt the needs of the organization above the spirit that formed it.
The universal motive would exist, for leaders to lead, and for followers to follow. If random arbitration was established, many government organizations that already exist, might turn out to be as universally agreeable as anyone has yet figured out. But given the motive for universal agreement, existing organizations might be adjusted according to more universally agreeable ideas as they become known.
These organizations might be viewed very different than in our current system. People would look for them and cooperate with them to the extent that they prove to be useful in avoiding arbitration, enabling people to know how to coexist harmoniously. To the extent that they disrupt that goal, they would be abandoned.
Many people might have good ideas on how we might cooperate for our mutual benefit. But in order for their ideas to work, they need to persuade people to listen and to cooperate. In our current political system of competition for legal coercion, they can get no where until and unless they become successful competitors in that contest. This necessity diverts a growing portion of time and effort away from the positive ideas that they have, towards the struggle for power.
But with the establishment of a harmonizing resolution procedure, it would be much different. Instead of the need to compete for legal coercion, the need would be to devise ideas that really work. Everyone would be looking for ideas that really work – that really do enable people to cooperatively go about their business without offending each other and being called for arbitration. All you would need is an idea that really works, and people would come to you, wanting you to lead while they follow.
Taxes.
You might be thinking that organizations for social planning require money to pay the planners. How would they be paid? If by taxes, who would have the authority to decide who pays how much tax?
Must people be taxed, forcing them to buy houses, cars, televisions, potatoes, and so on? Doesn't our demand for these things motivate us to willingly pay for them? Why should it be any different with our demand for planning and for guidelines? Everyone would need these things in order to know how to live without constantly offending each other and being called for arbitration. All we need is a procedure that enables each person to pay for the planning and guidelines of their choice. Why wouldn't there be a supply for that demand? There would be no power struggle to take its place, and the universal need to agree would replace the need to coercively force people to pay taxes. Compulsion to cooperate would be a result of the natural circumstances of our mutual existence, rather than from some power struggler's design.
You can use your imagination. Maybe we would hire "planning parties", instead of joining political parties. Each person would hire the party they trust the most to guide them in how to avoid arbitration. Or maybe we would arrange to have "proposal planning systems", enabling people with ideas to make their proposals, so that all of us could pledge our moral and maybe our monetary support for the plans of our choice. Maybe our monetary pledges for a plan might be valid on the condition that the plan receives the support that it asks for in order to work. The demand for efficient means for hiring planners whose ideas prove to be useful, would motivate the supply. You might have better ideas than these.
Ownership of property
This is the issue that is near the root of most disagreement. There are two basic sides which oppose each other on this issue. The harmonizing resolution procedure logically resolves the disagreement.
Idealistic communism.
On one side are those who believe that the earth as a whole is the common property of all human beings. From this point of view, for any human to claim a portion of the earth, excluding anyone else's right to it, is not fair because people are not equal in their ability to stake their claims. Those with greater ability would prosper while those with lesser ability would comparatively suffer. A person should not have to suffer merely because he was born with fewer options than someone else.
Yet, it can't be denied that somehow the earth must be allocated so that each person can use his fair share of it. How can this allocation be accomplished? The only way that a communist knows is for the communist party to seize, by any means possible, totalitarian control of all legal means of coercion, so that they can coercively compel their idea of a fair allocation of the earth. Production thereby decreases as potential producers lose their incentive, knowing that they have no personal control over the fruits of their own labor. And the power struggle for totalitarian control ultimately compels a reign of terror, totally defeating the idealistic purpose.
Free enterprise capitalism
On the other side are those who observe the power struggle and conclude that a dictator who has successfully defeated his opponents in the struggle for power, must perpetuate the oppression of his opponents in order to retain his power. This thereby corrupts whoever gains the power, resulting in a perpetually unfair and oppressive allocation of the earth.
From this point of view, the nearest we can come to a fair distribution of the earth is to let each person stake his claim according to first come, first serve.
Yet, it cannot be denied that first come first serve cannot be accepted literally in all cases. For example, the first to find water in a dry country cannot expect to have the sole authority to determine who gets water. There can be violent disagreement on issues like this. And so there has to be a way to resolve disputes over who owns what. This need seems to require a government with the power to resolve these disputes and to determine where and when the property rights of one person infringe on the property rights of another person.
A government with the power to make these decisions is thereby the focus of a power struggle -- the contest for legal coercion. And as the power struggle evolves, the losers in the competition are tempted to resort to illegal means in an effort to challenge what they see as an evil machine.
Communism and capitalism evolve towards each other, approaching a terrifying end, as the losers of the competition for legal coercion resort to extreme means. Only our natural desire for peace and harmony can temper, delay, and maybe avoid the terrifying end. Thank goodness for the good in human nature.
The harmonizing arbitration procedure resolves the issue.
Logically, the only way to fairly resolve disputes over the allocation of the earth is to remove all possibility of anyone controlling or manipulating the procedure that is used to resolve the disputes, thereby compelling all to seek a universally agreeable allocation. And logically, the only way to do that is to select at random those who have the final say, while holding all equally accountable for what they do. This is what a harmonizing resolution procedure would do.
With this procedure, the communists can have their idealistic desire – a distribution of the earth that is in accordance with fairness and equality, rather than in accordance with ability or the options provided by the circumstances of birth – and the free enterprise capitalists can have their idealistic desire – private ownership by each person of what he fairly should own, free to use it in any way that does not infringe on anyone else's right to do the same.
What it would boil down to is that you would own what any sincere expert who knew your particular circumstances, would agree that you should own. Living by this principle, which would be the only way to avoid being penalized by arbitration, all people would always be looking for common ground of agreement on all issues of ownership -- including such issues as help for needy people, ownership and control of public utilities, environmental protection, and so on.
Minorities
Imagine an ideal congress -- a group of representatives that truly includes ideal representatives of every single solitary person in the whole society. Being ideal, each of these representatives would be people with unblemished reputations for being honest, intelligent, knowledgeable, and incorruptible. Now suppose that the only way for this congress to pass a law, or change a law, or interpret a law, was for it to arrive at a unanimous agreement. Absolutely nothing would be legally passed without the unanimous agreement of every member of this ideal congress.
Under these circumstances, what would be the chances of this congress passing any law that unjustly oppressed any minority? Logically, it could not happen, since the representative of that minority would not agree to any such thing, and without his agreement, there would be no unanimous agreement.
You might think that such an ideal congress is impossible among humans as we know them. But how do you know? Logically, the harmonizing arbitration procedure proposed here, would have this exact effect. The only way for an arbiter to avoid being penalized by a subsequent arbitration, would be to seek advice from experts who are capable of finding a universally agreeable settlement for the case. If an arbitration made a ruling that was not agreeable to one single person who himself truly seeks unanimous agreement, then that person or whoever chooses to represent that person, would not hesitate to call for a subsequent arbitration against the arbitration officials who made that ruling.
The experts that the arbiters would need to seek, would play the role of the ideal congressmen who would need to rule according to the Principle -- the pursuit of universal agreement. They would be the ones who are the most universally trusted. They would be the ones who had the knowledge, the intelligence, the determination, and the drive to seek out every other such trusted representative of every single other person and every single other interest in the whole society. These trusted people would seek each other out, communicate with each other, and because of the unanimous determination to establish unanimously agreeable common ground, they would formulate guidelines that are agreeable to everyone who likewise seeks unanimous agreement.
As they seek each other out, they would need to ignore their irrelevant differences, such as race, gender, and so on. The ones who would be sought would be the ones who prove themselves most able to resolve disagreements in a way that is unanimously agreed on as fair.
Notice that this whole idea appeals only to those who truly seek unanimous agreement. Anyone who seeks any kind of biased favor for any interest group, at the expense of some one else, would find no comfort anywhere in this procedure. They would have no representation among those who arbitrate decisions. Logically, they would be the only minority that really would be suppressed by this harmonizing resolution procedure. Every selfish and unjust effort to profit in any way at the expense of anyone else, would be suppressed -- not by some human design, but by the natural circumstances of people needing to live together harmoniously.
The Religion of all religions.
Religion and politics cannot be separated. They depend on each other. Religion is man trying to know and do the will of God. Politics is man trying to take God's place, in the name of doing God's will.
A cause is a force that makes a happening. An effect is a happening. Neither can be without the other.
Without religion, material science treats the universe as if it was an eternal chain reaction of effects, with no beginning and no end. They trace effects back to their cause, but treat each cause as an effect of a prior cause. The net result is that without a first cause being its own effect, the logic contradicts itself -- a chain reaction of effects without a first cause. The self contradiction implies pain, suffering, futility, limited life followed by permanent death.
If material forces are not intelligent, they can never become aware of themselves, no matter how they might accidently become arranged.
If force is intelligent, it is free to solidify concepts, filing them away in an evolving preconception, for reference at will. What we see as the material universe is the diagram of our evolving preconception, or filing cabinet.
Cause and effect is the cycle of intelligence. Consciousness travels the cycle by inferring implications, which are concepts which agree with the evolving preconception. Each implication that is inferred, is then integrated into the preconception, causing the preconception to evolve. And each act of inference simultaneously implies another concept in addition to the one being simultaneously inferred. The implication caused by the act might subsequently be inferred when consciousness reverses point of view to see itself as effect instead of cause. And then the cycle repeats.
A cycle is like a circle. It has no beginning and no end, and therefore can be analyzed only by arbitrarily picking a starting point and then traveling the cycle. Each person starts the cycle at his or her own point of view on the cycle. Each point of view is somewhere on the causative side approaching the effective side, or on the effective side approaching the causative side.
Each point of view is therefore a ratio of cause to effect of effect to cause. There is no limit to the number of points of view, or of the ratios.
Here is how the cause and effect cycle works:
God, the Cause and Effect which is first before all else, must have nothing prior to himself to be either the cause of or the effect of. He is therefore the one true Self-Causing-Effect. Having no opposing force, He creates not by command, but by giving dominion to concepts of self which He infers, as in "let there be light". Being the first Cause -- the Principle Cause -- all effectively implied causes are reflections of the same desire -- to have a world as desired. All is therefore in perfect harmony with all.
As Cause, His sequence of inferences evolves an implied concept of self, thereby giving dominion to what his implied concept implies itself to infer. Then consciousness reverses point of view and as the self-effecting-Cause - she infers what his implied concept of self, implies herself to infer. From the effective point of view, she sees that the concept of self has having evolved from a single concept of self as Cause, to a dual concept of self as both cause and effect -- male and female.
Every act of inference simultaneously implies an implication additional to the implication that the act inferred, which is not known until Consciousness reverses to view self as effect instead of cause. This fact implies the promise of the forever new, as each act of inference implies something not known until point of view is reversed. This is the tree in the midst of the garden -- the tree of life which is the truth of what is.
The subtle serpent, however, from the same tree in the midst of the garden, suggests what is not -- that the original Cause is not the only cause, since He gave dominion to implied causes. This is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To infer contradictions instead of implications, contradicts self, which therefore has a short life of brief pleasure -- sinning, suffering, and ending up dust -- the fate of every supposed material thing in the universe.
From that point it remains for implied self-effecting-causes to evolve the awareness of the actual truth that every inferred supposition is thereby done to the implied self that infers it. "As ye believe, so be it done unto you". And so, the suggestion that self is not the only cause, thererby implies limit to every concept of self -- a life of limitation ending in suffering and death.
The serpent supposition poisened the evolveing awareness, as each reflection from cause back to effect revealed a supposed contradiction in the preconception, which self disagrees with, thereby further evolving the awareness of contradiction. The serpent grows into a great red dragon.
The antidote to the poison is the concept that evolved to Christ Jesus, who taught and demonstrated how to eliminate the contradiction in the preconception.
"Resist not evil" "agree with thine adversary quickly while in the way with him" "love your enemy" "bless them that curse you" "do good to them that hate you" "pray for them that despitefully use you" "love your neighbor as your self". Christ Jesus taught and lived accordingly. His materialistic adversaries did everything humanly possible to silence him. He gave his adversaries all that they desired -- he allowed them to crucify him, and he cried "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" which was what his adversaries wanted to hear, expecting him to be silenced forever. Then he rose from the grave and his words live to this day, and will never be silenced.
All of the ideas in this essay were inspired by logical deductions which I made, from studying the Bible and the book "Science and Health with key to the Scriptures" by Mary Baker Eddy. You may or may not deduce the same ideas by studying those books. That is up to you. I have not studied any other books, but I have logically deduced that the same ideas could be deduced by studying any other book.
Other issues.
Whatever problem you might imagine, would be a motive for someone to call for arbitration. Therefore, any problem that you can imagine, would be dealt with by intelligent arbitration officials who need, for their own sakes as well as all others, to make rulings that are as universally agreeable as anyone has yet figured out. What more could we as humans do to resolve disagreements?
Establishing the procedure.
The idea of enthroning the universal pursuit of universal agreement seems impossible in the world that we have known. It could not happen unless the idea, how it works, and how it benefits all people, individually and collectively, became common knowledge among most people. And it might be that when it does become common knowledge, there might be no need for arbitration. People might then already know that best option for themselves individually, and for all collectively, would be to forget about arbitration and always directly pursue universal agreement.
That is the intended purpose of this harmonizing motives idea of arbitration. If the reasoning is correct, the idea will promote itself by motivating whoever becomes aware of it, to tell others about it.
Those who seek political power justify themselves by the need for intelligent guidance. To enthrone the pursuit of universal agreement would provide the intelligent guidance, while evolving power struggles would postpone it indefinitely.
Those who seek freedom are tempted to fight fire with fire when their freedom is jeopardy . But without enthroning the pursuit of universal agreement, fire added to fire would magnify and perpetuate the power struggle.
A growing understanding of why and how the pursuit of universal agreement could be enthroned as the authority which decides what is right, could dissolve all disagreements, and unite freedom fighters with those who pursue intelligent guidance.
Comments and criticisms are very welcome