Let's form a Society

[Demagog]

This is an exercise in which we form a society. By this, we describe all aspects of the societies life after defining one principle the society is based upon. The principle is this: all citizens believe that everyone is free to do as they please as long as their actions do not inconvenience another person. Each person in the society believes this completely and would never purposefully go against this belief.

So, how would this belief affect the society? Would laws be required? If so, what laws? What type of government, if any, would be required? Does having this belief hinder or promote the well-being of the society?

Those are just a few of the questions that we can answer. I'm off to class though so I can't go into more detail at this time.

[OldTrees]

   How would this belief affect society?
Each person is has passively altruistic urges. (Desire not to inconvenience another)
Harm tends to inconvenience the harmed individual.
If these people were omniscient then their actions would never go against the belief.
The only harm would come from Nature, Outsiders and Ignorance.

   Would laws be required?
Prevent Harm:
Laws to prevent citizens from knowingly harming another would be unnecessary.
Laws to prevent harm caused by ignorance might still be necessary with size, scope and content of the law tailored to the action and ignorance.
Laws to prevent outsiders from causing harm to a citizen would probably be necessary unless another superior deterrent results from the society.
Laws to prevent nature from harming citizens would probably be necessary except in the myriad cases where a superior prevention results from the society.

   What type of government, if any, would be required?
None. A monopoly on the use of force would not be needed and force would, in most cases, be antithetical to the society's shared belief.

   Does having this belief hinder or promote the well-being of the society?
I am biased and cannot answer this question objectively.
 

[artimies7]

To be noted: Scientific advances would be somewhat slowed by maximum safety measures taken. Admittedly, nobody would get hurt, but still. It takes a while to unseal a Byzantine-strong door.

Also to be noted: As objectively as I can say, this belief would improve the well-being of the society physically and socially, but mental growth may take a hit due to a decrease of complex problem-solving internal difficulties. To what measure, I cannot visualize.

[Demagog]

To make some very quick points:

Some type of representation would at least be needed to communicate with foreign societies. Additionally, it could be argued that this belief does not prevent inaction, so if a natural disaster were to occur, people would not need to go help those affected. For this reason, disaster relief services would be necessary.

So some small form of government would probably be required. Do citizens pay taxes or anything like that to this government?

How is wealth distributed throughout the society (is the majority of wealth in the hands of a few or the hands of many)? Would the market be free or something more socialistic/communistic?

As for mental growth, could you elaborate?

[OldTrees]

Some type of representation would at least be needed to communicate with foreign societies.

True but that representation could be individual to individual or individual to government. It does not have to be government to government.

Additionally, it could be argued that this belief does not prevent inaction, so if a natural disaster were to occur, people would not need to go help those affected. For this reason, disaster relief services would be necessary.

Disaster relief services have to be supply from somewhere. If taken by force then it will inconvenience someone else actively (prohibited by society) or the person is volunteering their services/wealth. If the person is volunteering their services then disaster relief services would work as a private charity.

How is wealth distributed throughout the society (is the majority of wealth in the hands of a few or the hands of many)? Would the market be free or something more socialistic/communistic?

Resources will be used and perhaps privatized if plentiful and abundant. However scarce resources will likely be viewed as communal resources. Communal resources would only be used if the citizen thought they could give back to the communal resources equal or more than they took out.
Ex: Take and apple seed and return an apple.

I expect a free market and wealth inequality to exist but there would be aspects similar to communes.

[mesaprotector]

One thing that I wonder about is whether the society would be constantly under attack by people who did not share its beliefs. It seems unlikely, but if there were a war...?

[Naesala]

(watching, this looks interesting.

[Pineapple]

What are the possible interpretations do the citizens' have of "inconvenience"?
Assume they suicide. This would inconvenience all people they hold emotional ties with. Therefore, no one who contemplates the consequences of suicide to this extent will be able to suicide.
Let's say there is a shortage on goods. Each and every citizen is presented a chance to take the good for free. However, taking the good is knowingly denying another citizen the choice to take the good. If this good is a necessity, does this count as "inconvenience"? If it's not a necessity?
In other words, exactly how free are each of the citizens?

"The principle is this: all citizens believe that everyone is free to do as they please as long as their actions do not inconvenience another person."
Does "everyone" include people outside the society? Can they intentionally harm people outside the society?

What are the citizens' possible beliefs/thoughts/actions that result from watching someone purposefully inconvenience another?
Right now, I'm thinking that they would believe that everyone is restricted by their law, and so they would believe that the perpetrator would be doing it unintentionally.

Is there the possibility that a citizen can produce unintentional harm to their

[artimies7]

To make some very quick points:

Some type of representation would at least be needed to communicate with foreign societies. Additionally, it could be argued that this belief does not prevent inaction, so if a natural disaster were to occur, people would not need to go help those affected. For this reason, disaster relief services would be necessary.

So some small form of government would probably be required. Do citizens pay taxes or anything like that to this government?

How is wealth distributed throughout the society (is the majority of wealth in the hands of a few or the hands of many)? Would the market be free or something more socialistic/communistic?

As for mental growth, could you elaborate?

Disaster relief? I was upon the circumstances that each individual person would be involved in a neighborhood-type atmosphere. One might believe that inaction would inconvenience other people more than action would inconvenience one's self. Admittedly, there are arguments against, but neighborly attitudes were once prominent and still are in some communities, still displaying such actions.

To cover the gaps of self-government, a council might be in order, with each individual community participating in the approval or denial of a given hypothesis and then action upon that hypothesis should it be found to be true. Each leader of the unit councils would participate in a larger council, and so on. Such councils or a sufficiently broad level would create groups or individuals willing and able to communicate with other communities.

To state clearly, Inaction that would inconvenience more than similar and opposed action would not be permitted under this belief.

In addition, personal preferences would be intact in full, as well as freedom of speech as a default.