main index

P00: frame around

P01: olicognography

P04: pop. economy




Graph Start

Core n
Half complex graph








Justice abstract Values

Basic Olicognograph: Criteria of Justice

Good Things

Despite posteriorily abused by 'laissez-faire' of inherited owners (with the power to change the rules of the games they force others to follow) A. Smith was himself skeptics on moral of owners. Virtue of self-interest at his time was discrete. His 'Wealth of Nations' has not been his lone work and his own life shown that private economy was barely the only player in the system he had in mind. Now, up to you to observe that finding a more essential knowledge should potentially create more fruitful options, in the medium-long term, after having said 'no' to a short too narrow range sight.

K. Marx was prolific on sins of owners and capitalists but did not ignored the failure of some societies because of the lack of capitalist virtues. He did not lived, as centralist marxists, in a country not designed by a centrally directed monolithic economy with enormous logistic constraints and administred by a bureaucraty heir of tsarist era under the brutal hand of a georgian paranoiac ex-seminarist. But in exile he lived in an rainy misty Empire proud of its racial aristocratic superiority but with some democraty and enormous industrial wastes of material and peoples; in which not enough fair capitalists, as F. Engels or C. Owen were nevertheless trying to find humane social answers; away from industrialist deshumanization, too sectarist solutions, as those of socialist utopists as well as too violent nihilist options close to Bakounin's anarchism. May be Marx's minor mistake has not been to produce a sort of economics formally only valid for war planning of scarce ressources (and scattered distributions) under a concept of 'exploitation' that would have been more fruitful if examined as the one of wise management of raw material and humane care of humans, both traditional factors of production.

And may be Marx major mistake has been to have properly anticipated that thermodynamics was the right calculus for economics but to misconclude, from erronous assumptions on Podolinsky's genuine (but miscalculating) anticipation, because this miscalculation that did not saw Marx, was too contrary to his system. As explained R. Passet after J.Martinez Allier: Podolinsky did not catch the natural huge waste of increasing entropy feeding evolvilingly neguentropy of more open systems within cooler environmental topos. At that time coal's well less efficient than natural environment ressources obtained after hundred of millions of years of evolution was nevertheless giving a sense of infinite energetic ressourse from a non limited World. Should Marx to maintain his logical system, be made 'culpride' of not having anticipated the effects of deviationist reductionism economics of 'socialist States' emerged from violence, to play parodies of democracy?

Apart from the 'anecdotic observation' of liberal economists problems that, the demonstration that Marxian economy is right only with hard economy of scarcity (when they are themselves so kind with scarcity); more than the 'solution' or one lone answer to one question, seems to be a fake reduction of first order logic. More pragmatically many owners want to impose theirpredatory individual interest: the one that allows the reproduction of their advantages, grounding this reproduction natural, crooked democraty, if not divine into their priviledge, as well as having been able to use this liberal frame, when an empire, democracy when a corrupted business of power, illusioned neoliberal-libertarians as cherries at the top of a cake with diet cream over pork-barreled stuffed leisuring classes, meanwhile working machines have been delocalized, logically where was the compliant working classes, still aparted from democry. of course things are not simple.

In economic freedom there is a sense of positive contradiction for a better care of teleologic humane economy like:

  • 'No' but there is, at least, one option good for the whole of us (thanks to science and consensus),
  • 'No' I have not only one option (so there is choice between feasible solutions, not so different in social benefit),
  • 'Yes' I share what I have but we can then establish for a while an entreprise to solve our common problem (of scarcity?) - for the future of our good social relations (so stay in good terms for further business - chinese way - or; maintain trust - bank account owner) or can develop safely spirit of entreprise - owner but really commited to entreprise),
  • For something that I need, want or feel my preference (in scales under various perspective) or my utility (I can further reuse for), I have, at least the option to make it (I forsee) or to trade it (in a fair deal) and so on.

Anyhow, there is never just a binary yes-no linear situation, there is, at least, the probably intermediation of uncertainty. The deal is not over and with human to look at after what happen, that is to put a if. Now this systemic way to try to see after having thinked it well, is proper to humans, to better engineer previous solutions in the intent to maintain the safety of their sustainability. For he/she has been made weak, polyvalent, omnivorous and unspecialized but in the thinking mind on things to get deeper than economics want to see it.

More fundamental is byside of physics: the need to maintain the flows of input toward open systems, since the environment, with globally increased entropy. Positive flows toward the considered 'atom' which, in case of biological systems, can have established in enough cool tropospheric ecosystem so as to maintain enough high rates of probability for renewal cycles run on; since having fixed by information carried by living organisms and transmitted this to next generation (via genes and epigenetics). With a huge diversity of devices of integration of subsystems including viral, bacterial and other more transient parasites, to join pieces of more specific metabolisms; all concouring in the maintainance of one identity of maximum complexity.

Such level reached thanks to evolution and adaptation to conditions of environment. For some, vegetals that have developed on direct extractions of energy from Sun's light to make cellulosic strucutures carrying chlorophilia. From animal kingdoms to use as macrosource of food the partially (degrated pieces, when not cooked) provided by primary producers (that also often with the help of bacteria), etc. Thanks to primary conditions, construction of universe, tiny places - niches, recombination, mutations, adaptations and emergence, quantic levels, materialization of metastable states and disequilibriums, evolvement with non linear processes, almost linear effects too (within usual conditions) created systems turned into subsystems, specialized, incorporated enough varieties of system's maintenance, to preserve these reasonable rates of probability for keeping superior unity, level by level, in a quite similar way from one organism to another (not all had been to be reinvented at each different species, just specializes somehow, at least on Earth.

All this can now receive many of similar formulation that 'greed' of mathematician economists developed , in simplified but compulsory ways to try to demonstrate their model to be right and sophisticating so more and more, because never verified (or toasted before if they were threathening the establish order), meanwhile at end, all that, for reputation, privileges and money. Mathematics apply with less specialism than their interpreters; but there is still a big jump to make: have better material roots; even if still hard and less spectacular anger of the leprechauns from ... with their banks' secret revealed or the histrionic derivatives creators discovering to what have lead their exuberant forcing of loans.

By side of neurocognition, it is to observe that conscious brain is not at the top of everything but a derivation close to the top of a centralized body: the hypertrophy of frontal lobes which need to have time to think about and making it more probably through networks extending from brain stem to cortex. This cognition is derived under some sense of partnership with a more primitive brain, mostly unconscious, which is assuming automatically most of private inner central control and also above many, under the top, reflexes or spontaneous regulations. These laters start at the most basic (biochemical) level away any neural control.

So as far as possible considering our limits and as far as possible in a reasonable range of our humane proximity (closer than humanely dirty speculations), up to humans' living beings prone consciousness to find:

  • Social frames to regulate better our behaviors within environment, engineered settlements and care of sources of wisdom,
  • Look after short term evidences of physical and biological phenomena, for scientifically 'stronger and wiser' technological issues to study, test and implement them cautiously with a sense of social utility,,
  • Make a systemic use or reproduction of solutions especially of those that preserve social and humane solutions for the futur,
  • Make it with sense of common humanity (unity), practices of solidarity (intentioned by good preparation for further wise works), diversity (of options and smart decisions on careful issues), freedom (preserving soft liberties for everyone).

All this first in goodwill systems of lawfull social relations and wise, even before any theological dressings.

Rights & duties

  • Critic of legitimacy: no right without law (no such thing as natural rights)[but no duties without efforts of intelligence nor sincerity]
  • Critic of coherence: no rights without duties [neither discriminations since they often come as confusion: a right is always related to something like a duty]
  • Cultural critic: universal values do not exist [in same exact enunciate, anthropology, biology and other registers show all that there are many things in common and different interpretations because reductions ?]


  1. Balance: establish a social field of usefulness based on humane (good) principles [but let way to positive amendments]
  2. Extend inclusive scales with non material values [but care that private speculations do not bubble in excess, like to make majority's rule the curse of scapegoated minorities]]
  3. Complete definition (organic and function definitions of universal value) may not properly said exist.

Criteria for Equity, Justice and/ or Achievment (for & thanks to Freedom ?)

With the idea that complex constructions can have patterns allowing positive (hopeful) evolutions and the combinations of levels can join criteria, relative incorporations, observe more functional similarities (despite different definitions), if not so easy may nevertheless produce (dynamic) balances (or sustainable neguentropic disequilibria); we provide in the following some standard of concepts and logical thinking digging into deeper framework. First with criteria of justice, then with our weird concepts (they may be necessary in the future chaining of links of arguments (step-by-step progress of processes); then with concepts of socially significant freedom or liberty, since if your are alone on Earth this is not a problem to society (but may be one for madness of hazardous behavior).


  • Concept: do nothing that can harm other


  • Maximum optimum
  • Static (respect achieved inequality?)

Hicks-Kaldor simple

  • Concept: compensation if affected / affecting by any process or entreprise


  • Whom decide? (3rd part neutral?)
  • What if emerging (unpredictable) effect?

Hicks-Kaldor double

  • Concept ex ante compensation (precautionary), ex post correction (evaluated)


  • What if too expensive for any profit? (overall sustainability of project or changes? How to stop if ever ?)


  • Concepts (at least 2)
  • Freedom based,
  • Transfer to the poorest,

Inconvenients (crossed)

  • Effective?
  • Efficient?

Onion's: (Rawls replicated along scale, various strata?)

  • Concepts
  • Convexity up (fair competition between almost peer or superior - provided or accepting a weight)
  • Concave down (empathy, support to lowers, eventually anonymous)


  • Not simple, may be not alone: efficiency ? effectivity ?

Communism of perfect market

  • Perfect market rule tends to suggests everyone same atomic communist equality (At least and as far as possible a priori equality in the process information and capacity of negociation)


  • Feasible only if enough differences in any two halves, global convexity (economics/non economic field),
  • Observing that fundamental biology + psychology + skills + history make already enough individual differences, but economic sphere can cover variably.

With analogy choosen in our philosophy as an essentiel mean of exploration, concept of freedom can produce plenty. Considering cognitiion , we have also many and do not be sure that these do not play in the simple philosopgy of ethics and moral.

Concepts of Freedom



Fairness criterion


Aspire or wish

Be allowed to

Hicks Kaldor



No affect



Hope not

Be satisfied

Principle of precaution


Say no


Find a better way

Simple Combinations

1 & 2

Reasons to do

Measure of effects

Double Hicks Kaldor compensate & correct

1 & 3

Right to think

Freedom of behaving


1 & 4

Right to say

Freedom of disagreeing

Social positiveness

2 & 3

Right to intent


Onion's criterion (Rawls' integral)

2 & 4

Right to be

Duty to care

Principle of discretion (max: anonymous)

3 & 4

Right to resist

Right to believe /spirit's R.

Relative Morality's criteria: fair & controlled