This part can be understood as third thesis part. It contains conclusions derived from the aforementioned observations which are supposed to show possibilities of exerting an influence on the evolution of society. In the future, these orientational guides for the behavior of individuals should facilitate a conscious societal evolution. They are supposed to help us recollect what parts of the criterion we should set for society, in fact, which we have to set for it.
It is certainly senseless to appeal to people to "behave more reasonably" in general. When push comes to shove, everybody puts their own interests first, and in everyday life nobody has to give away anything for free. Consequently, egoistic behavior on the part of the individual is what is to be realistically expected. This has to be taken into consideration. With the conditions and criteria we set for society, we have to create the society we want to live in. There are courses of action which do not demand a great deal from the individual but which nevertheless are part of our moral responsibility for society.
Wherever possible, everybody should commit themselves to speak out for the requirements we recognize to be of an essential nature. Without a certain degree of moral courage, a genuine democracy cannot be upheld. Those who concede to all pressures of a totalitarian government are not worthy of living in a real democracy.
With insight into the fact that society adapts to its criterion, for example in part to the requirements set by individuals, we should consider the following:
Guaranteeing a free exchange of information is indispensable so that no particular group can abuse society for its own vested interests.
After all, that exchange takes place at the level where the individuals "joined forces". If that level is not open to all individuals we certainly cannot speak of a cohesive societal integration in the sense of a social contract. The system coming into existence in this case uses its parts just like cog wheels in a clockwork with the objectives existing at the most general level.
As the new system is the environment for the individuals, it turns into an instrument of suppression in contests and conflicts between individuals and/or between groups. It is fruitless to demand something like humaneness in that case, because that concept does simply not exist at that level. The only way to enter the information required into that level is in the course of a learning process. In order to safeguard the viability of society according to the interests of its individuals, the following basic attributes of a democratic society are to be guaranteed, extended and/or restored:
The peaceful coexistence of states requires a superordinate level and a fusion resulting in a new system.
As not all tasks can be fulfilled at state level, we need a complement containing the requirements which are valid for the development of all states. Human rights defined at this level create the required evolutionary pressure on all states.
This level needs an executive power to counter belligerent acts if the demands are not supposed to end in "idle talk" only. The criterion must be set by the population of the states. The state apparatuses must not determine this course of events; otherwise, they simply "ditch" the pressure exerted upon them.
The following points can only be sensibly clarified at a supranational level:
The adjustment of laws to common sense and good requires an assessment. Today's election results provide very little information and do not generate sufficient pressure on the citizen for him to actively deal with alternatives. The primary focus should be on determining objectives.
When certain programs are to be decided upon, there must be a clear indication as to objectives canceling each other out. Within the state apparatus, an independent institution is needed which converts objectives into programs, and which clarifies what objectives are not simultaneously attainable. There must be an end to nonsensical election pledges of political parties. The new assessment procedures also have to determine the relative priorities of all objectives.
The following points should be taken into consideration:
By nature, regulations realized by the state apparatus are much more susceptible to encroachments by social groups - and in the case of catastrophes impairing the function of the state - than existing natural control processes. They are also more susceptible to encroachments by the population attempting to evade their pressure and thus trying to alter their effects. Of course, it is not desirable to have nature itself regulate the population density in a certain region. This task must be taken on by society. In doing so, however, this must not take place as stubborn restriction but rather by passing on the economical requirements posed by the environment upon the society to the individuals in a suitable way - optimumly via a mechanism reflecting the society/environment activities within society.
Consequently, financial regulations should transfer environmental demands of society to societal demands of the individual. This does not necessarily have to lead to willful egalitarianism, either, which would block development potentialities between individuals. Obviously however, market regulation processes cannot be taken over by society at that point. Subsidies are the best example for blocking development potentialities by engaging in indiscriminate interferences. The financial resources of the market are the criterion being distorted by subsidies. The processes leading to such a policy - power struggles between social groups - are not capable of these considerations. It is only when the fights for the largest share in social property are transferred into a new decision-making process that differentiated decisions are possible at all.
It is not sensible, though, to have a system hit upon a restriction in such a harsh way. A superordinate decision level is required, taking into account not only economical requirements limited by space and time, but allowing for decisions of a more general nature. In this case it is also sensible to pass on the conditions imposed upon society by the environment to sub-systems in a suitable form so as not to block its development potential. For example, a general form of "environmental tax" would be nonsensical. The only effective control mechanism is a differentiated supplementary parafiscal charge. Environmental demands are superimposed by the conditions set by society. In this way, it is guaranteed that the sub-systems are not taking a course harmful to society as it is inevitably the case with some subsidies. The criterion is comprised of environmental conditions and society's demands.
As a result from the evolution of human beings and society, certain rudimentary behavior patterns still exist which will lose their particular significance in the further course of events. Conflicts/contests shift to another level, priorities change.
For example, in the course of society's growing closer together, the discrimination of ethnic groups which was needed in the past turns out to be not only superfluous but even harmful. Conditions have changed, and human beings as well as societies have to make allowances for that. Peaceful coexistence will require a stronger protection of society against group interests and cliquism. This additional social effort, as well as the additional risk accompanying it, is to be avoided. Protecting individual freedoms renders the formation of groups unnecessary. One should bear in mind that any unnecessary frictions/tensions "contaminate" the atmosphere in a society. Frictions/tensions escalate due to negative repercussions on the members of that society. A free tolerant form of government can only come into existence if these conditions are held dear by the population in a corresponding way. A state coming into existence under the influence of consistent power struggles between groups will be affected by these conflicts.