The Foundations for a Better World by Neil Lock

February 7, 2026

In recent months, I have been writing two strands of essays. One on theory, ethical and political; the other on current events and issues. Today, I will extract from my earlier writings a “management overview” of my ethical and political ideas. And of my ideas on the foundations for a new system of governance, to replace the awful mess of a political system that we suffer under today.

Despite all my efforts at brevity, the wide scope of this essay means that it will be longer than my recent norm; about 5,000 words. To put this in context, though, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government was around 56,000 words long!

Four groups of key ideas

My key ethical and political ideas are 22 in number. They divide into four groups:

Six general ideas on ethics.
Three ideas on inter-personal ethics and human rights.
Five “organizational” ideas, which seek to answer the question: How should we organize ourselves for maximum benefit to all?
Eight sets of rules for a system of governance, whose objective is to replace and supersede the failed system that is today called politics.

I covered the first two groups of ideas in my essay “Ethics, Obligations and Rights,” here: [[1]]. I followed up with more detail about what I call the natural law of humanity, here: [[2]]. I addressed the third group in an essay “Community, Society and Justice” at [[3]].

As to the fourth group, I began my design for a new governmental system by considering what functions a proper governance should have: [[4]]. I considered how a proper governance should treat the governed: [[5]]. And I offered an outline proposal for a proper system of governance, which I call Just Governance. [[6]].

Where I introduce an idea which has the status of a Principle, I shall state the principle at the head of the section, in italics.

Terminology

A few points about terminology I will use in the rest of this essay:

I use the word government to denote the old system, and governance for the new.
Those who adhere to the natural law of humanity, allowing for the specific exceptions necessary for practical reasons, I call human beings worth the name.
I define a real wrongdoing as an act that violates the natural law of humanity, in ways not covered by any of the recognized exceptions.

My key ethical ideas

1. The identity determines morality principle

Right and wrong behaviours for a species of sentient beings are determined by the nature of the species.

Any species of sentient beings, including humans, has its own natural law, defining what is right and wrong for members of the species to do. For human beings, it follows that right and wrong behaviours are determined by human nature, as at our present state of development.

What is our human nature today? In my view:

It is natural for us to take control of our surroundings, to use them for our benefit, and to leave our mark on them.
It is natural for us to use our faculties of reason, to seek to understand what we see around us and what we experience.
Moreover, it is natural for us to form ourselves into social groups, and to organize them in such a way as to bring benefits to everyone in them.
By doing this, we build civilizations, which provide the habitat in which we human beings can live our lives to the full, including an economic free market.
And in that habitat, we interact with each other through honest business, economic activity and trade. And we seek to co-operate to take control of our surroundings.

2. The ethical equality principle

Among members of the same species, what is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.

The principle arises from the premise that all individuals of a species have the same nature. If they did not have the same nature, they would be different species. And therefore, what is right and wrong for each individual to do is the same for all individuals of the species.

Conversely, an individual that fails to demonstrate the nature of a particular species shouldn’t be considered a member of that species. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it very probably isn’t a goose or a swan. Further, if it doesn’t walk like a duck, and doesn’t quack like a duck, then the evidence for the contention that it is a duck is slim.

3. The natural law of humanity

At the level of the individual, it is natural for each of us to behave in ways that better our species and move it forward. Put another way, for human beings, just as for all other sentient species, there is a natural law, or as John Locke called it “law of Nature.” This natural law, if we choose to study it, can tell us what are the right and wrong ways for each of us to behave.

Locke paraphrased this natural law as follows: “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”

I call this law the natural law of humanity. At our present level of development, this law obliges us to behave in ways that make us fit to be lived with, and so fit to take part in civilizations. And right behaviour for a human being is convivial (fit to be lived with) or, otherwise said, civilized (polite and enlightened) behaviour.

4. The Convivial Code

Because the natural law of humanity consists of obligations each individual must adhere to, and those obligations are the same for everyone, it can be codified. I call this list of obligations (once it has been written!) the Convivial Code.

The Convivial Code will be an ethical code of conduct, which encapsulates the natural law of humanity. It will be, in essence, a touchstone for humanity, at the stage at which we are today. It will be independent of any particular culture, religious belief or non-belief. It will constitute a core set of standards of behaviour for human beings worth the name.

One major way in which the Code will differ from systems of political laws is that, for long periods, sometimes even over many centuries, the Code will be timeless. So, once set up, it needs no permanent legislative. Changes only become necessary when circumstances occur which have not been envisaged before, or human nature itself changes, or new knowledge becomes available about what it is. And these events are rare.

For example, the latest change in human nature came with the Industrial Revolution, when striving to be economically productive, and the need for the free market which sustains productive people, became part of human nature. Because of this, absent such events, the Code will be applicable retrospectively.

In that same essay, I gave my own best shot at the Convivial Code. I call this the Code lite. It is a list of 25 obligations, which divide into three groups: 7 positive obligations, 4 expectations (things which the individual must strive to do) and 14 prohibitions. Here it is:

Respect the human rights and freedoms of all those who respect your equal rights and freedoms.
Always seek the facts on any matter, and tell the truth as you understand it.
Be honest, candid, straightforward and sincere in all your dealings.
Take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable effects on others of your voluntary actions.
If your voluntary actions cause objective and unjust harm or inconvenience to others, you have an obligation to compensate them.
If you engage in activities that impose a risk of harm on others, you must have in place resources to enable you to compensate them if such a harm eventuates.
Always practise what you preach.
Strive to be independent, self-reliant and rational in all your thoughts and actions.
Always strive to carry out what you have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to do.
Always strive to behave with objectivity, justice, integrity and good faith.
Strive to be tolerant of all those who are convivial and tolerant towards you.
Don’t bully anyone, or commit any aggression against anyone’s life, person or property.
Don’t interfere in other people’s lives without a good, objectively justifiable reason.
Don’t unjustly do to others what they do not want done to them.
Don’t intentionally do or aggravate injustice.
Don’t promote, support, co-operate with or condone any unjust violation of human rights or freedoms.
Don’t promote, support, make or enforce any law that harms, inconveniences, or violates the rights or freedoms of, innocent people.
Don’t seek to control others through emotional manipulation or obfuscation.
Don’t put any obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or unjustly deny anyone’s access to it.
Don’t unjustly deny others the right to make their own decisions in thought or action.
Don’t deny anyone the presumption of innocence, or require them to prove a negative.
Don’t try to take more from others than you are justly entitled to, or to impose costs on others that bring no benefit to them.
Don’t pick favourites, or operate double standards with anyone.
Don’t recklessly impose harm, or unreasonable risk of harm, on others.
Don’t willingly let yourself become a drain on others.

I shall discuss the exact meanings of the words justly and unjustly a little later, when I come to look at the organizational idea of common-sense justice.

5. Back-to-backing

In my view of ethics, valid human rights or freedoms can always be mapped into obligations which, when obeyed by everyone, will deliver those rights or freedoms to all those who respect the equal rights and freedoms of others. The reverse is true, too. If everyone around an individual keeps to the obligations which make up the natural law of humanity, then that individual will enjoy the rights and freedoms, which correspond to those obligations.

I call this process, of mapping between rights and obligations, “back-to-backing.” But the mapping isn’t always one-to-one.

In constructing the Convivial Code, any right in any of the major lists of rights, from Magna Carta, via the 1689 bill of rights and the 1791 US bill of rights, to the UN declaration and the European Convention, must be checked to see if it is in reality a valid right. And if it is, it must be back-to-backed with an obligation or set of obligations to be included in the Code.

6. Practical limitations and exceptions

One problem with viewing ethics in terms of lists of obligations is that it isn’t always practical to keep to the obligations with absolute strictness. For example, to include an absolute prohibition on physical violence would be impractical, because it would not allow those under attack to defend themselves. The Convivial Code must, therefore, also specify the conditions under which individuals may reasonably break it, and at what level.

I identify two sets of exceptional circumstances, which can justify acts that deviate from ethical obligations, and therefore violate the Code. These circumstances are self-defence against aggression, and defence of others against aggression. I shall add some more exceptions later, when I come to discuss the rules for governance.

My key ideas on inter-personal ethics

7. Judgement by behaviour principle

You should judge others, not by who they are, but by what they do. And, where appropriate, by what you can deduce about their intent and motives.

Judgement by behaviour represents a practice of judging individuals by examining how they behave. It means that you should not take too much account of things outside an individual’s control, such as race, birthplace, received religion or disability.

Instead, you should simply ask: Is this conduct appropriate for a convivial human being? Thus, you should judge people by their actions. And, of course, their motivations for doing what they do, as far as you can work them out. You judge them, not by who they are, but by how they behave.

8. Rights are earned principle

You earn your human rights by behaving as a human being.

Rights are not granted by a government, a deity or any other external party. Instead, rights are earned. You earn your human rights by adhering to the natural law of humanity, including respecting the equal rights of other human beings around you.

9. Earned rights are sacrosanct principle

If you behave as a human being, no-one may justly violate your human rights.

The flip side of rights being earned is that by acting as is natural for a human being, and respecting others’ rights, you acquire an expectation that others will respect your equal rights.

If you adhere to the natural law of humanity, including respecting the earned human rights of others, then you are innocent of any real wrongdoing, no matter what anyone accuses you of. Therefore, your own rights must be sacrosanct. No-one – least of all government – should ever be allowed to take away even one jot or one tittle of any of your rights.

My key organizational ideas

10. A community is not a society

A society is a group of people who have agreed to join in a common cause. A society has a “general will,” a will shared by the members as a whole. Namely, the objectives for which the society aims. Provided, of course, that those, who cease to agree with the objectives or the conduct of the society, can freely leave the society.

A community, on the other hand, is a group of people, bound together by some shared characteristic; but not necessarily by anything more. A community has no general will. Thus, it is not a society, and not a collective. It is merely a group of individuals.

Many use the word “society” in the singular, in a meaning such as “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” In this meaning, it is often dignified with a capital S. I regard this usage as collectivist and misleading. My view is, there is no such thing as Society, only societies. Many use the term “the community,” with a definite article, for essentially the same thing. I reject this usage too, for the same reason.

In summary, a community is not a society. And the people living in a particular geographical area are only a community, so cannot be expected to have a general will. Therefore, no individual among them may be subjected, against his or her will, to any political government.

11. The voluntary society principle

All societies must be voluntary.

This principle is explicitly supported by the UN Declaration of Human Rights: “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” Thus, no-one is a member of any society, unless they have voluntarily chosen to become a member, and have not in the meantime countermanded that choice.

Moreover, no-one has any right to treat you as if you were part of some collective, that you have not voluntarily joined; or to require you to abide by the rules of any such collective. As a human being, the only rules you must obey are the rules of the natural law of humanity.

12. Falsity of the social contract idea

Two forms of the social contract idea have been suggested. The Hobbesian version, dating from 1651 and enshrined in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan. And the Lockean version, published in 1690 in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.

According to the Hobbesian narrative, at some time in the past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority of them) made a contract with each other. They consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute sovereign, and by so doing authorized and approved whatever the sovereign chose to do. Moreover, once the system has been set up, there is no possibility of changing it, or of escape from it. And we, today, are still bound by their agreement.

But I find this narrative absurd. Even if my ancestors might have subscribed to such a thing (and, as far as I know, they didn’t), I as an individual have never agreed to any social contract! Where is my signature on any such damn thing? Moreover, where are the statements of the benefits I am supposed to get from it, and the procedures for me to get justice and redress if the government party fails to deliver? They do not exist.

John Locke’s form of the social contract idea says that a group of people may choose to form a “political society.” This they do “by agreeing to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceable living.” But he is very clear about the purposes of the agreement: The objectives are the preservation of their property, and the preservation and enlargement of their freedoms.

Locke cautions that any government in such a political society must always act for the “public good.” That is, the good of every individual in that society, as far as that can be achieved by setting common rules for all. If a government departs from or goes beyond this, or seeks to impoverish, harass or subdue the people it is supposed to be serving, then it has become a tyranny, and is no longer legitimate.

How to deal with a government that fails to deliver its side of the bargain? Locke gave us three options, in increasing order of severity. One, put new people in charge. Two, dismantle and replace the system. Or three, abandon the whole idea of government.

We’ve tried the first of these on many occasions before, haven’t we? With very few recent successes at all. In fact, over my lifetime, almost every UK government has been worse to live under than its predecessor. Isn’t it high time we gave the second level of sanction, the dismantle-and-replace idea, a go? Let’s get rid of the political state, and in its place build a system of governance that works for human beings.

13. Common-sense justice principle

Every individual deserves to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.

The principle implies that if you don’t do, or seek to do, harm to innocent people, you don’t deserve to suffer any harms being done to you. On the other hand, if you do harm to others, or seek to do harm to others, or impose on others unreasonable risks that lead to actual harm, you should be required to compensate those whose lives you damaged, and if appropriate to be punished in proportion to the seriousness of what you did.

In essence, common-sense justice is Charles Kingsley’s “Be done by as you did.” It is a hard taskmaster; but it is a fair one.

I will define here what I mean by justice and injustice, just and unjust. By justice, I mean conditions in which the common-sense justice principle applies, and outcomes are consistent with it. An injustice is a situation, in which one or more outcomes are not consistent with the principle. And when I use the words justly or unjustly, for example in my Code lite, I mean consistent or not consistent with the common-sense justice principle.

This kind of justice also teams up with the judgement by behaviour idea I discussed earlier. Together, they provide an ideal of justice, in which what matters is not who an individual is, but only how they behave (and, on some occasions, their motives for doing what they do). It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter what colour someone’s skin is. Or where they were born. Or what religion they were brought up in. Or what their gender or their sexual preferences may be. All that matters are their actions and their intent towards others. Thus, under common-sense justice, everyone is truly “equal before the law.”

14. Maximum freedom principle

Except where countermanded by common-sense justice or the natural law of humanity, every individual is free to choose and act as he or she wishes.

I like to summarize this principle as “maximum freedom for everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.” Every individual is free to choose and act as he or she wishes; provided only that their actions do not unjustly violate the rights or freedoms of, cause harm to, or impose unreasonable risks of harm on, others.

There will also be a general presumption of freedom. Anything not prohibited will be allowed, unless it violates others’ rights, or causes or is intended to cause unjust harm to others, or imposes unreasonable risks on others.

Rules for the conduct of governance

15. The purpose of governance

The purpose of forming a governance is to provide for a group of people a habitat of:

Peace and tranquillity.
Objective, individual, common-sense justice.
Human rights and freedoms, including respect for the humanity and dignity of every individual human being worth the name.
An economic free market with free trade.

16. The capabilities of governance

Here are some things governance must have the capability to do:

Governance can make laws, as long as they are consistent with the natural law of humanity, which forbids everyone to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.
Laws made by governance may only interpret or explicate the natural law of humanity. They must never contradict it, violate it, go into areas beyond its bounds, or seek to enforce any political agenda.
Laws made by governance must always aim at the public good of the people, and of every individual human being worth the name among them.
Laws made by governance must defend the lives, rights and freedoms, and possessions of the governed. They must never destroy or damage any of these things.
Laws made by governance can carry penalties if broken.
Governance can order reparations to the victims of objective, proven harms.
Governance can use reasonable and proportionate force to restrain and, where appropriate, to punish those that break its laws, or fail to pay reparations it has ordered. Individuals can assist if they are so minded.
Governance and individuals can use force to defend or retaliate against violent attack.
Payment for governance in any period must be in proportion to the wealth of an individual’s estate. No other taxes may be levied on any individual without the consent of that individual.
Everything governance does must be for the public good. That is, the good of every human being worth the name among the governed, as far as it can be achieved by making and enforcing laws common to all.
The power of governance rests ultimately with the people, and may not be transferred to external parties.

17. The functions of governance

The functions of a proper governance are envisaged as:

A legislative, whose powers are strictly circumscribed by the limitations above.
A police force or equivalent.
A defensive and retaliatory force, to resist violent attack.
Impartial, objective and honest courts of justice, covering restitutive and penal law.
The support services associated with the courts of justice.
A quality control system, to ensure that governance always acts for the public good, and for the good of every individual human being worth the name.
A fair and just system of financing the other governance functions, in which the payment is in proportion to total wealth, and there are no further taxes without individual consent.

18. How governance must treat the people

In an essay on the Nolan Principles of Public Life, [[7]], I gave a list of expectations, which individuals can reasonably have of how government should behave towards them. It may be summarized as follows:

Selflessness: Everyone in governance must act solely in the interests of the governed. (That means in the interests of every individual among them, real wrongdoers excepted).
Integrity: No-one in governance may allow themselves to be inappropriately influenced.
Objectivity: All governance decisions must be impartial, fair, unbiased, and based on merit and the best evidence available.
Accountability: Those in governance must be held accountable for the effects on the governed of what they do.
Openness: Governance must act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner, and may not withhold information from the governed without very good cause.
Honesty: All holders of office in governance must be truthful, candid, straightforward and sincere.
Leadership: Everyone in governance must treat the governed with the respect due to them as human beings. And everyone in governance must practise whatever they preach.

In particular, no-one may enrich themselves, parties they favour, or governance itself, by adjudging penalties to be paid to themselves, to favoured parties, or to any organization that implements governance.

19. Adherence to ethical and organizational principles

The following rules must apply to any governance:

Governance must always adhere to the ethical equality principle. Thus, it must deliver the rule of law, and must not arrogate to itself moral privileges.
The law to be upheld, and at need enforced, by governance must be the natural law of humanity. In particular, no-one – including anyone in governance – may unjustly harm any human being who adheres to this natural law.
Governance must always uphold the rights and freedoms of all human beings who adhere to the natural law of humanity, and respect the equal rights and freedoms of others. This includes the right to dignity: that is, to be treated with the respect due to a human being.
Governance must always adhere to and uphold the common-sense justice principle.
Governance must always adhere to and uphold the maximum freedom principle.

20. Code of conduct for governance

In its conduct, governance must adhere to the following principles:

Governance must make its decisions impartially, rationally and objectively.
Governance must ensure that all its decisions are based on evidence, reason and, where appropriate, science that has been honestly carried out according to the scientific method.
Governance must not use its powers to impose on anyone any particular religion or philosophy. Nor may it prohibit the practices of any religion or philosophy, unless they violate the natural law of humanity. Nor should it tolerate those that seek to impose on others, against their wills, any religion or philosophy.
Governance must not allow any political ideology or agenda to be imposed on anyone against their wills.
Governance must never discriminate against those who seek individual liberty and independence.
Governance must not seek to control or to interfere with economic activity in any way, unless that activity unjustly causes objective damage to others, or violates their rights, or imposes on others unreasonable risks of harm.
Governance must always recognize and uphold all the rights and freedoms identified in the Convivial Code.

21. Adherence to Enlightenment principles

In addition, to measure up to the Enlightenment values, to which all governance must keep:

Governance must have a clear and publicly available constitution, specifying the limits of what it may and may not do.
No part of the power of governance may ever be transferred to any external party or parties.
Everything governance does must be directed to the benefit of those it governs. Indeed, to the benefit of every single individual among them; except only those that commit real wrongdoings.
Governance must never undertake any project for which the costs to the governed, financial or otherwise, are greater than the benefits which accrue to them from the project.
Governance may not unjustly put any obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or of anyone’s access to it; or in the way of honest business activity.

22. Further exceptions to apply in the context of a governance

The function of just governance, which assures peace and tranquillity and defends rights and freedoms, must be able to intervene in the event of breaches or planned breaches of peace, tranquillity, rights or freedoms. This implies another four exceptional situations, in which deviation from the Convivial Code can be allowed.

Because of the ethical equality principle, what is right for anyone to do if employed by governance to monitor, or to seek out, detain, enforce compensation by, or mete out punishment to, real wrongdoers, must also be right for anyone else to do.

Anyone who has reasonable suspicion that an individual or individuals have carried out, are carrying out, or are planning to carry out, real wrongdoings, may monitor them in a reasonable and proportionate way, provided this does not violate their rights or freedoms.
Anyone who has reasonable suspicion that an individual or individuals have carried out, are carrying out, or are planning to carry out, real wrongdoings, may use reasonable and proportionate force to detain them for the purpose of bringing them before the judicial function of governance.
Once the judicial function of governance has determined that reparations are payable by one individual or group to another individual or group, it may delegate to an appropriate individual or group the power to enforce the payment of these reparations.
Once the judicial function of governance has determined any criminal punishment to be laid on an individual, it may delegate to an appropriate individual or group the power to carry out this punishment in the correct measure and severity.

In conclusion

Let all that sink in. Do you have a sense of… a new space? Perhaps, a better world coming?

To those who have read this far: Thank you. And please make some time to think about the ideas I have expressed here.

Image credit on main page: Freepik

[[1]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/ethics-obligations-and-rights/

[[2]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/the-natural-law-of-humanity-by-neil-lock/

[[3]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/community-society-and-justice-by-neil-lock/

[[4]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/what-should-be-the-functions-of-government-by-neil-lock/

[[5]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/how-should-government-behave-towards-the-governed-by-neil-lock/

[[6]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/just-governance-by-neil-lock/

[[7]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/the-nolan-principles-and-dogghie-by-neil-lock/

Godalming and Ash