Who to allow in?

Free to leave

Following the debate about allowing people in, the four began to debate the next topic. The liberty to leave. When a child reaches a point when they are capable of looking after themselves, it would be unreasonable to make it awkward for them to go if they wanted to.

Ben suggests they formulate a set of basic principles. These fundamental aims lay out the most important values of this small society. There will be just seven of them so that they are easily kept at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Ben wants to avoid expanding on these tenets, for it can lead to a super complex set of principles that get ever harder to understand and enforce.

Ben declares that respect ought to be given to people’s desire to leave. There shall be freedom to leave the island at any time unhindered. Ben next declaration as leader; They shall endeavour to respect peoples’ desires rather than give people rights as such. Claudia likes the idea of elementary laws but needs to be convinced that Ben’s declaration is adequate. Rachael also thinks it all sounds a little whimsical and not as definitive as strict cast iron protective laws. Yet we see around the globe that no law stops dreadful actions. As far as people’s wish to leave goes, that is quite simple. They will do their utmost to enable them to leave if they so choose. As importantly, they appreciate people’s desire to live. Most people on the island can see this and can make sure nobody does anything to infringe upon that. We understand someone’s wish to be unharmed. We may worry about a reprisal. We may fear getting caught and prosecuted. These things take a while to assess. The hurt we are about to inflict is understood immediately. The legal consequences of our actions play a part in our refrain, but it is largely our empathy towards others that has a more powerful effect in holding us back from hurting others. Having aims set out which are well promoted and encouraged is novel but effective. The group will ensure that any transgressions are reported and dealt with in a timely fashion. Those in charge must adhere to the aims too. They must adhere to them as fully as everyone else, else be removed from office by a simple process.

Another aim, suggested by Dave, relates to the conditions of entry. This is where the homeowner has the privilege of deciding who can enter and under what terms. Dave likes people to take their shoes off before coming in and other people may insist that nobody smokes, or lights incense inside. These and other guidelines are fine, yet they require clauses for when someone needs to be captured for severe misconduct. Can someone enter a property to get them out and on to the podium of justice if deemed rightful? It can all get complicated rather quickly. You build a school, insist upon people attending it and insist they remove their shoes when entering the building. You are caught between a rock and a hard place if you refuse to remove your shoes anywhere but are compelled to attend school. You can decline an offer, dinner at Dave’s place, as you will be made to remove your shoes, but this isn’t the case at the school. You either have a guide that lays out the precedence, which rule goes above the others or have an obligation to create a school that isn’t so demanding about how you dress.