A02 Foundational Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

All political and adjudicated conflicts are best resolved by whoever provides the best argument.

OR

All political and adjudicated conflicts are best resolved by resolving each side’s priority of needs.

Anankelogy

Not only do your natural needs for water and for companionship exist as objective needs, you objectively need some things more than other things in order to fully function. You prioritize those things necessary for you to objectively function.

Independent of your subjective experience, you require water one moment and to relieve yourself in another moment. You objectively cannot function if you try to choose not to drink water when thirsty. You objectively cannot function when ignoring your need to relieve yourself.

Independent of your subjective experience, you require companionship in one moment and to be left alone in another moment. You objectively cannot function if you fail to deeply connect with someone who deeply cares about you. You objectively cannot function if you ignore doing more things for yourself for when no one is around.

Your need to draw in water and expel waste water is cyclic. Your need to draw closer to others and then pull away sometimes is also cyclic. You can easily relate how your objective priorities can change with the seasons.

You experience other priorities of needs that rarely change with the seasons. Your situation can prioritize one set of needs over another. You may find it difficult to relate to others with a sharply different priority of needs. Especially if falsely assuming they choose to need differently.

When living in less densely populated areas, you objectively prioritize providing more for yourself without relying too much on public institutions. You gravitate toward conservative values. Conservatism gives outward expression for your inward priority of self-sufficiency that you did not choose. You objectively require less government intrusion to fully function.

When residing in more densely populated areas, you objectively prioritize utilizing public institutions more and more. You gravitate toward liberal or even progressive values. Liberalism or progressivism gives you outward expression of your inward priority for social support that you did not choose. You objectively require more government involvement to fully function.

Anankelogy instills the discipline that objective priorities shape our political and judicial preferences more than strong arguments. We’re naturally attracted to political or judicial arguments that most align with our objective priorities. We don’t choose our needs; our needs choose us. We best choose to respect each other’s objective priorities of needs.

Need-response

Need-response challenges the popular yet failing assumption that our political and judicial conflicts are best settle by might. The prevailing argument favoring one side easily ignores the objective priority of needs of the other side. And that sets up the context for the next politicized or adjudicated confrontation.

Reactive Problem

Current standards assume we resolve conflicts with the best argument. This conveniently ignores how the side with the most resources tends to sound more persuasive, often getting their way. Moreover, the squashed needs of the losing side easily comes back to haunt the coerced settlement.

Denouncing violencewithout addressing the unmet needs fueling that violence tends to fuel more violence. Outwardly, it may appear a politicized or adjudicated issue was settled. Then we wonder why the losing side cannot remain content with the results of our democratic process.

Objective needs and objective priorities do not submit to majority vote. Expecting our institutions to change the inflexible reality of each other’s priorities now collapses public trust in those institutions. They can never deliver what many expect if clinging to this notion that the priorities of others can be changed to fit our own priorities. That’s simple a recipe for more violence, visible or invisible.

Responsive Solution

Need-response raises the bar by first identifying the inflexible needs and inflexible priorities on each side of a conflict. While combative politics and the adversarial judicial process takes the easier win-lose path, need-response can create better outcomes with its win-win approach.

Instead of coercing the public to accept one priority of impersonal laws over another to ease pain, need-response helps each side to remove cause for pain by resolving needs each priority of needs more fully. Instead of coercing the plaintiff and defendant to accept one side’s priority  over the other, need-response guides each side to melt the conflict and heal any damage with the higher power of love.

Need-response brings all sides together to illuminate their inflexible priority of needs. Then incentivizes all sides to find the best way to resolve the inflexible needs by adjusting their flexible side of how they address each other’s needs.

Distinguishing between inflexible needs or inflexible priorities and any flexible response to them can be critical to resolving politicized and adjudicated conflicts. The fact our political and judicial institutions overlook this critical distinguish is a key reason why they are failing. The further these institutions pull us away from loving one another, the less reason to trust them to produce good outcomes.

Instead of privileging animosity and hate, let’s get back to loving one another. Instead of spurring antagonism and even hate by trying to manipulate others to serve your own priority at the expense of their inflexible priority, need-response dares you to honor their inflexible priority as you would have them honor your inflexible priority.

Such lovesets our higher moral standard and we must not back down, lest our objective levels of functioning is allowed to decay further. Need-response brings the discipline to honestly engage each other. To identify the inflexible needs on all sides. To stop provoking either side’s animosity toward the other, but instead nurture greater respect for each other’s less visible affected needs and priorities. That’s how targeted institutions can earn the empirically based legitimacy to impact our lives.

Any person or institution resisting this higher standard of love risks being marked as pariah. Once marked, they can be held personally and professionally responsible for our rising rates of anxiety, depression, addictions, and suicides. Not to cast them aside but to enforce the tough love that we mean business when avowing to fully resolve needs. Love permits us to do no less.

Responding to your needs

How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these:

• How can need-response effectively transform politics and the courts?

• People are too self-centered for this high-minded approach.

• How is this love different from romantic love and other kinds of love?

• How can I distinguish between what’s inflexible and what’s flexible in my own priorities?

Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below.