The Biosocial Contract, Part 2: Some Policy Implications

An ideology without a concrete, programmatic plan for how to realize its objectives is merely rhetoric, or fantasy, or perhaps even sophistry.  It’s only when you spell out the social, economic and political implications of your vision that you allow its merits, and practicality (and political viability) to be tested in the real world.  Marxism was extremely vague and permitted the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao to fashion their own political agendas.  Modern libertarianism, likewise, comes in a bewildering array of sometimes contradictory views.  Some libertarians seem to take a piecemeal approach (in this country at least), focusing on such specific political issues as legalizing marijuana, gay/lesbian/transgender rights, Obamacare, etc.

The Biosocial Contract is more ambitious.  It offers an overarching vision of a Fair Society and a clear set of objectives that can be linked directly to a broad legislative and policy platform.  (See especially my 2011 book on The Fair Society and my new 2018 book on Synergistic Selection.)  Here I will be brief.

As noted in Part 1, the Biosocial Contract has three distinct “goal posts”: (1) equality with respect to our basic survival needs; (2) equity with respect to “merit” (or “just deserts”); and (3) reciprocity, or giving back for the benefits we receive from others and society.  These three fairness principles – equality, equity and reciprocity -- must be bundled together and balanced in order to realize a stable and relatively harmonious social order.  

To achieve this end, the Biosocial Contract must be grounded in a universal “basic needs guarantee.”  The case for this foundational principle includes four key propositions: (1) our basic needs are increasingly well-understood and documented; (2) although our individual needs vary somewhat, in general they are equally shared by all of us; (3) we are dependent upon many others, and our economy as a whole, for the satisfaction of these needs; and (4) more or less severe harm will result if any of these needs is not satisfied.

Our basic needs must take priority, but it is also important to recognize the many differences in merit among us and to reward (or punish) them accordingly.  It is well documented that the principle of “just deserts” also plays a fundamental role in our social relationships.  Our capitalist system at its best does a good job of providing rewards for merit, but at its worst it perverts that principle.  In addition, there must be reciprocity – an unequivocal commitment on the part of all of us (with some obvious exceptions) to help support the collective survival enterprise.   We must all contribute a fair share toward balancing the scale of benefits and costs, for no society can long exist on a diet of pure altruism (or debt, for that matter).  We must reciprocate for the benefits that we receive from society through such things as our labor, the taxes we pay, and public service.

It should be stressed that this vision is emphatically not an unattainable ideal.  There are some real-world examples.  What has been called the Nordic Model – including especially Norway and some other Scandinavian countries – encompasses full employment at decent wages, a relatively flat distribution of income, a  full array of supportive social services, extensive investment in infrastructure, excellent free education and health care, a generous retirement system, high social trust, a strong commitment to democracy, and a government that is sensitive to the common good, not to mention having a competitive capitalist economy with high productivity and deep respect for the environment.  Yes, capitalism!  To top it off, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund (a financial reserve earmarked for pubic needs) currently totals about $1 trillion, a huge nest egg for such a small country.

What are the programmatic and policy implications for our own country? They include: a national full-employment policy at a “living wage,” with government (or private sector contractors) as the employer of last resort (an idea that goes back to the Employment Act of 1946), along with upgraded job training programs, a vastly improved public education system, free public higher education, universal free medical care (with some co-pays and adequate controls of course), generous paid maternity and sick leave, excellent low-cost child care and pre-school programs, sweeping infrastructure renovations and improvements, upgraded mass transit systems, beefed up retirement incomes, and more.  Maybe we should start our own sovereign wealth fund; it’s never too late.   Needless to say, the results of all this would be transformative.  But it’s also a very tall order.  Some might say too tall.

However, the reality is that our society (and our species) is at a tipping point -- another “major transition” in the ages-long epic of evolution, an unprecedented choice-point.   To summarize the more detailed discussion in my 2018 book, a positive way forward will ultimately depend on (1) a shift in our social values toward the adoption (and implementation) of a universal “basic needs guarantee,” (2) major changes in our capitalist economic system toward respecting the interests of all the “stakeholders”, not just the shareholders, (3) governments that are empowered (and constrained) to act for the common good on behalf of the “public trust,” and (4) a broad-based social reform program unlike anything we have seen since the New Deal.   I call it the “Fair Deal,” after President Harry Truman’s campaign slogan in 1948.  Yes, the Biosocial Contract is a very tall order, but the Nordic Model (and, indeed, the American Model back in the 1950s, before the great erosion began) proves that it can be done.  In the end, it comes down to the (political) choices we make as a nation.