William,. The issue that you highlight from Sumner's book regarding the disparity in the perceptions of value between and also within societies is key to the philosophy expressed within this project.  I apologise for the slow pace of rolling out the material I have.  As you can imagine it is diverse and complex. Framework and organisation became the priority... If only for my own questionable sanity!  I think I have now established that framework. As soon as i have smoothed out the index section I will be able to start editing to an acceptable standard the documents that gave rise to the need to reorganise.   The matter of value does ultimately develop into a question of metaphysics.  The issue I had to address was how to resolve that issue with the lessons from nature regarding the nature of succesful behaviour in an overwhelmingly complex world where the resultant strategies are nonetheless durable, resilient and adaptive and where this outcome requires the diversity of approaches within species that we see around us and across our own.  You will see that from this one comes to the understanding of what, from the point of view of lifeform propogation, defines good from evil.  One worldism being not good! Yet, how to be diverse but believing in the same moral and ethical foundation, peacefully. Hopefully my approach will sdvance us along that road in theory.  The matter of implementation will come in the fullness of time, long after we will be here to see it.  Thanks for asking!!! Rob

This is an excellent idea when consider about  recognition of co-existence and dignity of all kinds of people/groups. However, the diverse values and also conflicts among them based on those cultural facts need to be identified from  more broad perspectives than income inequity.

@Pennilage Then you will be more comfortable that I agree with the premise of what you say.... Income distribution is not related, in any direct way, to the distribution and accumulation of value except within a system of thought in which the primary vector of value is identical to the vector by which income is distributed.  The diversity of values arises because we ascribe within that same system a diversity of purposes, or goals.  These are as numerous as the people who have felt they need to justify the particular arrangement of the details of our basic system of labour expropriation, usually choosing the one which they are themselves benefiting from.  In my work I have sought to identify axiomatic principles from which to build.  But I am the first to accept any cogent argument that shows a further deconstruction of any one of them.  Fortunately I have nothing, and therefore have nothing to lose, except my pension at guaranteed level and my accommodation!   Wellbeing, of which my exposition of it is only begun in what I have uploaded, is a necessary condition and a result of our 'cosmically ordained' drive to survive and flourish doing it.  The only positive form of value is thus that set of outcomes which contribute to the effective implementation and sustaining of our capacity to survive and enjoy it. All the rest are parochial tinsel at best, obstructionist and hence evil, at worst.  To cut to the quick, the main characteristic of all things of value judged on this basis is what one might call 'the infrastructures of life', personal and public, material and institutional, behavioral and spiritual.  It is not cooperative in the sense of 'The Socialist International' but its pyramid of association is not heirarchical either becuase the flow of control, being cooperative, operates in the opposite direction - to create a neologism, that reflects the language here in Chile, association is 'bajarchical'.   Some would call it anarchy because of that, and hope to gain the idea's demise by etymological negative associated ideas.  Ideas which all exploit the connotations of fluidity and chaos due to a lack of structure.  Which brings me back to the absolute necessity for building a strong conceptual framework from which 'rigid', yet adapatble and diverse. forms of social order delivering wellbeing consistently across them but in a myriad of ways suited to the historical and geographic inheritances that each brings with them.  This might then be called Anarchy... but with a very very large letter 'A'.  A conceptualisation of it that owes almost nothing to that form we have inherited that can only be written with a very very small letter 'a'.  Unfortunately the Ancient Greek leaves us with no adequate synonym for formal states of popular democratic organisation and governance. Plutocratic Democracy and Chaotic Anarchy have unfortunately sullied the use of the nouns that we should be able to use and be understood by.  The tempatation is always to appeal to other source languages to avoid this problem, but as the widespread understanding of a neologism would depend upon the success of this concept in sparking a reaction in the souls of the world's people on may as well rely upon such a reaction to just as easily overwhelm past misuses of the nouns themselves.  Exactly how should be left to some hack with style who succeeds in capturing the essence of what this is and also the mood of his readership.  Meanwhile it is the 'cry of the people' on behalf of a Future Humanity.

My use of the term "social security" is meant to cover all of the aspects of human well-being.  The problem is, that when it comes to specifying what dimensions are involved, the value differences lead to different dimensions and/or different priorities for the agreed-upon dimensions.  I do not need or want any "spiritual" dimensions in considerations for my own well-being, BUT other people in other cultures actually prioritize such considerations. In such a case, my world-view and theirs are not only different, but contradictory.  Agreeing on an arrangement that would satisfy both myself and them will be VERY DIFFICULT - some would say "impossible!"  Describe to me the arrangement that will reconcile such value differences sufficiently well that we can all work within a common framework.  OR, describe an alternative arrangement that will enable people with radical value differences to still collaborate on these issues,