I see you’re trying to solve social ills through these seven rules. I read your comments, and I noticed something that’s worth talking about. It might bring some clarity to our words.

I see your idea of freedom, and it very much sounds like negative freedom. This kind of freedom is not empirical or scientific. It is a-priori. In other words, you close your eyes and assume everyone is equally free.

The problem with this stance is that it is not empirical or scientific. A truly empirical ad scientific view of freedom is positive freedom. In it, your freedoms exist to the extent that you’re capable to be free.

Can’t talk? You’re less free than someone who can talk. Can’t learn? You’re less free than someone who can learn. Can’t bribe politicians? You’re less free than someone who can.

Positive freedom is also known as human development. And a society that takes human development seriously is a society that invests in their people.

I personally think adopting a pragmatic view of human development is better than assuming good rules will save us.

Another issue I noticed is that common sense is not the same everywhere. Some people are convinced they’re in the right while someone else thinks they’re in the wrong. That is why I prefer the clarity that scientific positive freedom or human development brings. It brings clarity. It’s less ambiguous.

Also, your rules sound a hell of a lot like one of the secular satanist groups. I wouldn’t be surprised if they inspired yours! I actually think they did.

Anyway, have a good one!