We should embody moral precepts in practice (Neurons do)

A deep commitment to moral principles will resolve the flaws that produce a civilization that is neither equitable nor sustainable

The Golden Rule requires a strong respect for human rights, which include rights to property. Respecting property rights means respecting the right (and duty) of property owners to participate in the benefits (and responsibilities) of ownership. But we are committing a serious error when we only pay attention to some of the fundamental human rights that we can call property rights. We respect private property rights with the full force of law, while almost completely neglecting questions relating to ownership and management of public or commons property—the natural resource wealth of the planet. 

Legitimate governments must respect the moral principle that recognizes the Earth and natural resource wealth as a shared legacy, a kind of shared property vested in the people at large. Citizens must create... WE must create... governments that function in a way that ensures that commons or public property rights are respected.

Ownership in the Earth, and the benefits and responsibilities of ownership, ought to be vested within all of us equally. We need a paradigm shift– profound and sweeping change in our politics and economics. A society that respects public property rights will require industries that take natural resources or emit pollution in pursuit of profit to pay money to the people when they take or degrade that which belongs to all. The amount paid could float up incrementally, until it is high enough so that businesses have the necessary incentive to change their practices to bring overall environmental impacts into line with what most people think is acceptable. 

A system of random surveys could reveal whether human-caused impacts of various kinds are being kept within appropriate limits. A democratic society would aim at creating conditions (rates of taking resources or putting pollution) that most people say are about right. If most people felt that there should be more stringent controls on this or that kind of pollution or slower taking of natural resources, we could raise the fees charged to industries that cause these impacts. Our political system would serve as an arbiter between users of natural resources (corporations, primarily) and owners (the people at large). As owners, we will share in the benefits of ownership. We will share the rent proceeds from those environmental impact fees. We'll also share the civic duty to help decide what the overall limits ought to be for various kinds of human impacts on the Earth. Perhaps when we receive our natural wealth stipend, we might also answer a few random survey questions about particular kinds of environmental impacts, or about whether funding for this or that public program or service should be increased or decreased. (Decisions about what programs are deserving of support can be decentralized, vested in the people at large, along with the decisions about what limits on pollution or depletion of resources are acceptable.)

Within a public property rights paradigm, a survey question about whether we ought to be more strict or more lenient in our control of environmental impacts is essentially the same question as whether we ought to require corporations to pay more or less money to the people when they take this or that kind of resource or cause this or that kind of pollution. The self-interest of citizens to prefer higher payments to the people when corporations cause environmental damage or degradation will help to promote the general interest of the larger community of life and of future inhabitants of Earth to establish stronger incentives to reduce environmental impacts of various kinds. Corporations seek higher profits, then, not by trying to ever-more-thoroughly externalize their costs onto the larger community (i.e., put pollution and deplete resources) but by trying to reduce environmental impacts in whatever way feasible. The happy coincidence between individuals' self-interest and  the societal interest is mirrored in the relationship between the corporate interest and the general interest. What is better for the corporation (reduce expenses) will also be what is better for the larger community of life (reduce environmental impacts).

On a thoroughly populated planet, neglect of basic moral principles can make a world of grinding poverty and environmental degradation inevitable. Neglect of public property rights means that extreme poverty can exist alongside great opulence. Neglect of principle means that environmental damage and depletion of resources is more profitable than what would be the case if industries had to pay fees in proportion to pollution put or resource taken.

If citizens of a free and democratic society decide to live and act only in ways consistent with moral principle, we will see a shift in voting patterns toward green and libertarian alternatives (or left-libertarian). This will combine the limits to government action implied by libertarian principles  (no first-use of force or coercion by government) with a program agenda that will allow us to fulfill our responsibilities to one another and to the larger community of life on Earth.

Healthy societies require that members give due regard to the interests and concerns of their fellow members. If we look at a collection of neurons as a community or society, with members in communi-cation with and interacting with one another, we may see patterns that bring to mind some basic principles or rules of social interaction.

Because of the kind of molecular quantum-machine entity that it is, a neuron has the tendency to 'want' to be either in a resting state or in a state of steady activity. A neuron is no more likely to want to remain in a state of being somewhat active than a ball is likely to 'want' to roll along the mountain crest between two valleys. Neurons make adjustments in how they interact with their neighbors so that, if they are operating at a pace that is a bit slower than their most comfortable steady pace, they will increase their connections to their more active neighbors. They will then become more active themselves and thereby approach their ideal steady pace. Conversely, if a neuron is nearly quiet, it will want to decrease connections with active neighbors so that it can achieve a more restful state.

But a neuron may not make these discernments and adjustments only with an “eye” toward what will improve its own state. It is a decision machine. It decides based on what it perceives of its neighbors' states. A neuron may try to make its adjustments in a way that allows it to meet its own goals while also aiding its neighbors in achieving their goals. There may be several ways that a neuron could adjust its pattern of connections with its neighbors that would improve its own state. The neuron may try to make those adjustments that most benefit both itself and its neighbors. (This would, in turn, benefit the entire community.) Otherwise, any attempt by one neuron to improve its own state might interfere with or frustrate the efforts of neighboring neurons in their efforts to improve their states. By trying to discern which of its neighbors are trying to become more active, and which are trying to move to a state of rest (then acting accordingly), a neuron improves the efficiency or functionality of the neural network and the quality of its output.

[Within each neuron, there are a multitude of microtubules that can connect with and disconnect from neighboring microtubules to create, from a large number of possibilities, specific pathways for ions to travel. Which pathways are chosen determines which synapses will send neurotransmitters to neighboring neurons. Both the tips of the tubes and the molecules that make up the walls of these tubes are in a peculiar state of oscillation between quantum and classical realms. There are recurring moments when the precise orientation or location of the tube tips are in quantum super-position. It is as though the tubules were simultaneously connected to several of their neighbors (and those neighbors to several of their neighbors, and so on) and were sampling the various possibilities to see which pathway provides the best 'fit' for the context. The continually-renewed sampling is a consequence of the oscillation or vibration between quantum and classical realms. (A similar thing happens in a chlorophyll molecule to find the best path through which to transfer the energy of a photon.)]

For a neuron, the golden rule says to make your decisions about how to interact with your neighbors in a way that aids them in achieving their goals of reaching a more comfortable state. Likewise for members of human society: We must follow our own Golden Rule to ensure the proper functioning of our society and civilization. We must act in ways that show concern for the interests of our fellows. Maybe brains function only because neurons follow their golden rule. So too should we follow our Golden Rule, if we seek to establish justice and sustainability as the foundation of a properly functioning global civilization.

The Golden Rule requires that we not use government as an instrument to initiate violence or coercion against any person. We would not want others to use government against us in this way. We should not support policies that involve government agents initiating force against peaceful people. Private behavior within private spaces should not come within the purview of government.

When we learn that our systems of governance are at odds with our most basic moral precepts, due to our failure to adhere to principles relating to proper restraints on the use of force, and to principles relating to the sharing of natural resource wealth—when we learn that our inattention to basic principles is the cause of abject poverty and furthermore that it results in a situation where industries profit by squandering resources and degrading environmental quality— we have a moral duty to take steps to remedy the situation. A different way of thinking about the power and responsibility of government (and of citizens) could ensure that our political and economic systems will serve as a foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.

What responsibility do our religious communities have, if any, to address questions of public property rights, to ensure a sustainable and just civilization?

Where are the voices challenging us to exercise our moral sense as we form and participate in our political and economic systems?

Natural law requires respect of public property rights, too