The most honest country is ...? (Honor system/Self-Moderation)?

Question

Honesty embedded in life-style, isn't this the most efficient
way of life? Everything out in the open, and knowing
what makes the life-style convenient for everyone involved.
What good is the right to congregate and establish
relationships if the people involved are deceptive for
reasons of self-convenience? Shouldn't relationships
be based on mutual convenience? I am not insisting
that everyone be friends. Quite the contrary, I am
insisting that people rationalize relationships, and not
form meaningless relationships. Relationships without
purpose are bound to be out of sync. In your opinion,
which country is most self-moderated at an individual
level? For example, I haven't studied law, but I manage
to stay within the laws simply by being courteous. Therefore,
which country could you most easily imagine to be orderly
in the absence of any law system or punishment
consequences? Courteous people don't need the
deterrent of punishment; they know the benefit of candor.

Wigginsray:
"self moderation becomes easier with relative wealth. find the wealthiest country and there is your answer."

Self moderation is independent of
wealth(as far as money goes).
In fact, the wealthiest country
could potentially be the most
unbalanced in the department of
honesty. For example, if I make
a loaf of bread and someone offers
me $50,000 for the bread and I
accept the offer then that might
make me wealthy, but it certainly
doesn't make me honest. The
most honest response would
be to inform the consumer that
the breads cost is an amount
equivalent to the effort which
was expended on making the
loaf of bread, and to sell it based
on that honest evaluation.

Gerry D:
"There are laws for punishment however; and there are problems too. Is punishment necessary based on population counts? Can we always expect that there will be levels of a system even for courteous people? Why? Because people plain and simple will always be people."

Yes, a system of laws and
punishments is necessary, but
for the purposes of the question
suppose which country would
remain the most orderly without
one. In a completely fair society,
I don't think laws would be
necessary to the extent that
people would always get what
they earn, and people who want
more than what they earned would
choose to move to a location
which evaluates earnings differently(
perhaps deceptively).
Essentially, the punishment is
only necessary because people
do not have a means to live how
they choose using peaceful
methods. Unfortunately, some
people insist on harming others
to get what they want despite the
much easier option: cooperation
to achieve quality of life.

Strateia8:
"If the indexes are accurate and the method right, so will the answer."

Indices are a rational approach.
Consider the following desirables:
High life expectancy
High freedom of expression(high voter
turn out and low crime rate combined)
High domestic employment rate
High education proponent
High public utilities provisions
High volunteer service
High religious diversity
Low external debt
Low import resources
High economical turn around
High health care coverage

All of these factors can contribute
to a more facilitated honest system.
The most honest system shouldn't
reserve any methods for blackmail.

High life expectancy:
People are happy enough to live their lives.

High freedom of expression(high voter
turn out and low crime rate combined):
People have the right to voice their
opinion and don't get themselves in
trouble in the process.

High domestic employment rate:
People can find employment within
their community if they do not desire
to work abroad. The employees
realize the benefit of the society
as a stable setting.

High education proponent:
People are encouraged to think and
the thought is productive, or at the
least not counter-productive.
The education environment fits
well with the domestic employment,
and the example of stability
set by it. The student benefits
from the proximity of the reality
of the work force, and involvement
in it. Information exchange is
preferable over corporate secrecy.

High public utilities provisions:
The economy assists the people in
sustaining the economy. Public
utilities such as water, electricity,
and transportation; rationing in
proper quantities with regard
to investment output.

High volunteer service:
People volunteer service to the
economy. People are enthusiastic
about performing to the best of their
ability regardless of token incentive.
Therefore, work output is consistent,
and not inhibited by negotiating the
reward to match the effort. The reward
is a healthy economy.

High religious diversity:
The population is accepting of many
religions and the appropriateness
of each of them; people of other
religions, or of no religion, don't
need to be "fixed".

Low external debt:
The efficient internal economy isn't
compromised by the demands/
influences of the inefficient, possibly
dishonest, external economy due to
the owing of something.

Low import resources:
The internal economy doesn't require
the resources of an external economy.
Therefore, doesn't fall victim to supply
and demand of less honest systems.

High economical turn around:
Economy driven by the people in
regards to the needs of the people.
Taxation only as a credit/debt system;
legalize under-the-table employment
for family businesses which don't
rely on social assistance. In an
economy which doesn't purchase
imports, taxes are almost useless
because all the resources are already
present in the economy.

High health care coverage:
Considering that people receiving
sufficient health care should be
capable of working after the service
is provided, the cost of health care
should be paid by the economy.
Free to low cost care.


Of course, the most honest economy
in present day would probably only
have some of the qualities mentioned
above.

Godself:
"Also, law and punishment would NOT be needed in society for order to be maintained, IF the population were educated on the negative natural consequences of each action they take, and how by doing something dishonest, they are causing harm and hinderance to themself indirectly. Most people currently cannot conceive of this, so laws were created to define what is good and bad, and punishment was created to make it clear to the person who does bad that they have done bad."

Beautiful, concise and straight to the
center of the rationale for honesty.
Thank you for the refinement of
the essence of the question at hand.

ZinaRae:
"There is no perfect society. No one can control another person to that extent. Too many rules/ laws just makes it easier to break them."

Perfection is not a matter of controlling
other. People being subjective and
unique, every person can be
considered as imperfect in reference
to other. Therefore, perfection by
controlling rule, or one rule forced
on all, can't be perfect when freedom
is concerned. You seem to be putting
forth this notion in the third sentence.
Considering honesty, perfection
and rule might be regarded as
straightforward negotiation. In other
words, we might state that the ideal
negotiation would be purely honest
rather than subtely riddled with
self-interest manipulation rather
than honest evaluation of what
agreement would be fairest for
both entities involved; both entities
assisting each other in negotiating
the optimal mutual benefit rather
than the least effort agreement for
self's side. To elevate other is to
elevate mutual.

Davis Wylde:
"We do what will ultimately help us
WHILE helping others."

Ideally, yes we should do what will
help the mutual association of all
those involved. Without honesty
those involved won't have a clear
concept of how best to help each
other. Therefore, we choose our
life-styles individually, and when we
choose our life-styles honestly and
associate with honesty then we
open the platform for helping our
true selfs'.

Answer 1

self moderation becomes easier with relative wealth. find the wealthiest country and there is your answer.

"In fact, the wealthiest country
could potentially be the most
unbalanced in the department of
honesty. For example, if I make
a loaf of bread and someone offers
me $50,000 for the bread and I
accept the offer then that might
make me wealthy, but it certainly
doesn't make me honest. "

You're story isn't based in reality, besides there's nothing inherently dishonest about selling an overpriced loaf of bread. Any business person knows that you don't price an item based on what it's cost is to produce - your price it according to the value perceived by the consumer.

Answer 2

I'm not going to touch this one before thinking it through, and even then it's extremely tentative. Since I haven't been all around the world, and I frankly don't trust my assessment of national traits (stereotypes always get in the way, try as one might), there's got to be a better way to attack this.

It seems the question turns on a Kantian distinction between law and morality. The law is intended to control offenses against citizens, which means it is there to protect people from those who can't (or won't) control themselves. Those who act morally don't need laws, since they regulate themselves.

To get a fairer view, it might help to find some indicators of the things we want to appraise. Measurable things would be best. I'm looking for trends, hints at where the most honest population is most likely to be found, based on certain things we can agree on. Otherwise there's not much point in talking here. If the indexes are accurate and the method right, so will the answer. I'm not saying I've got it, but let me have a shot.

Thus the formula "No law, no crime" is in play. It would seem to cut both ways: an absence of laws for burglary, say, makes it legal but not moral. My reply would be that people's desire for preservation of community and self lead the formation of social customs and legal codes. If common courtesy provides the means for minimizing a certain problem, then a law is unnecessary. But if a person won't control himself, and the community can't, they'll institute the law that will.

The criticism that "country" is not necessarily the best unit of measure: my guess is that AOP is aware of the existence of laws international, federal, state, county, and city. Federal laws are merely the simplest ones for assessing this question, since we need a constant.

Laws provide a framework for people to move around without stepping on each other's toes; morality provides a template for them to act for the good. Action for the good is a vague phrase, but it gives us something.

The easiest way to measure well-being might be economic activity. When people are free to act, this often translates into business; if they do a lot of business, they'll probably make a lot of money, raising the standard of living. Of course that alone is no guarantee of honesty. But it might be a factor.

Thus I'm suggesting that a country with a small legal system, low crime rate and strong economy seem to be good candidates. To formulate it:

Laws x Crime
------------------- = honesty index
Economy

(Simplistic, to be sure, but you've gotta start somewhere.)

Let's see what happens. According to UN statistics, the ten countries with the lowest total crime rates are

#53 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 19,814
#54 Georgia: 15,029
#55 Azerbaijan: 13,958
#56 Papua New Guinea: 13,292
#57 Armenia: 12,048
#58 Dominica: 7,857
#59 Qatar: 5,838
#60 Seychelles: 4,297
#61 Montserrat: 751

The ten countries with the lowest Big Mac Index are

#56 Argentina: $1.55
#57 Hong Kong: $1.55
#58 Indonesia: $1.54
#59 Thailand: $1.51
#60 Malaysia: $1.47
#61 Paraguay: $1.44
#62 Ukraine: $1.43
#63 Macau: $1.40
#64 China: $1.30
#65 Qatar: $0.68

So far Qatar appears to be a strong candidate, but I haven't factored in the size of the legal system yet. (No statistics I could find. Don't know if there is any.) So there's hardly anything conclusive in this highly unscientific answer.

Answer 3

Tibet and Antarctica
Beliefs are based on thoughts, and religion is based on beliefs. Buddhism is one of the most honest widely accepted religions in the world, with a high concertration in Tibet, which leads me to believe that the people of that country would exist in harmony with each other long after the western world destroyed itself and the east in the absense of dishonesty. I also believe it has something to do with the number of people per square mile being lower, so there is less competition for everything. Antarctica is different. There is so little of everything available, and the climate is so unforgiving, that people are forced to be honest and trusting for their very survival.
Also, law and punishment would NOT be needed in society for order to be maintained, IF the population were educated on the negative natural consequences of each action they take, and how by doing something dishonest, they are causing harm and hinderance to themself indirectly. Most people currently cannot conceive of this, so laws were created to define what is good and bad, and punishment was created to make it clear to the person who does bad that they have done bad. This system is intrinsically flawed on so many levels, and does NOT work. Did you ever notice, the countries with the greatest number of defined laws are the countries the the highest crime frequency and intensity. The countries that practice no tolerance punishment are the countries most commonly implicated in human rights violations. The countries that refuse to participate in international violent activities generally have a very placid population, whereas the countries that engage in war with other countries have relatively unruly people. This is not a mistake, or a lie. It's a negative natural conequence of the thoughts and actions of the people in those respective countries. Cause and effect, nothing more, just like the apple that fell on Newton's head is a matter of cause and effect involving gravity. Scientifically speaking, what I have said above is not in contention in any way, and I challenge anyone to disprove me.

Please respect our only home!

Answer 4

AOP,
the country(ies) that come to my mind are Sweden, and quite possibly Finland and Iceland. I have never been to either of these three; however, I have had friends that are from there, lived there, then traveled abroad in their careers. I am basing my answer on discussions I had with them. I completely concur with you that "courteous people don't need the deterrent of punishment; they know the benfit of candor."

I will ask you though to consider a much more defined location other than "country" to your question. Consider Amsterdam (the city) as opposed to Holland the country. Maintaining a more micro level of consideration may give you more options to the response you are seeking other than the macro response you may require. For what ever the purposes you are using this for - I would at least ask you to consider adjusting your hypothesis. You may not only get a more defined answer, but you may have several more selections to choose from.

As I think of this further, Australia (a country I have been to) may fit the mold you are seeking - but not perfectly. There are laws for punishment however; and there are problems too. Is punishment necessary based on population counts? Can we always expect that there will be levels of a system even for courteous people? Why? Because people plain and simple will always be people. It is a nice thought though to think that there could be country as one that you pose in the question for courteous people like you, me, and others.

Answer 5

lol. I in basic terms know one that has blocked me and that i've got blocked 3 yet from an prolonged time in the past. The questions I answer greater often than not at the instant are not conflicting ones from the "exe" and opposers. i seek for the honest and ones that are "hungry". Then I even make a ingredient of having a stable time at here. you have some great solutions although. We basically would desire to be careful...you recognize sly like a serpent yet gentle as a dove.

Answer 6

I don't believe any entire country can squeeze into any of the requirements of your question. Some countries include sub-geographies where something akin to what you're describing appears to exist. At least to an outsider.

Wales comes to mind. The folk in Yucatan might qualify, if left alone by the National Government and the Mexican Army.

In the abstract, it's tempting to suggest somewhere in Asia, but the seductive abstract deconstructs under scrutiny.

Maybe Tibet. I've never been there, so I speak without authority. But maybe Tibet, if left alone by the Chinese.

Answer 7

Switzerland has direct democracy, but Cuba has the greatest medical system in terms foreign aid and participation. Only get small ''right' wing groups negative propagandizing with small and incredible samples. The Green Peacers appreciate the environmentalism. Countries are not people of course and I'm too much of a cynic to accredit a whole country with one Judgment.

Answer 8

I'm very much in line with what your philosophy is suggesting. I think the Robert Wright-ness of it is astounding and at the same time the result of reasoning human beings looking at morals and realizing that moral beings evading punishment are not moral- nor are those seeking reward. Moral people do what is right without coercion.
But, on that note I don't think I can point to any one country. I can point to many sects and cultures and masses of human beings whom I wish would have THAT awakening and divorce morals from religious beliefs. Courtesy and reciprocal altruism will suffice and win out any day. We do what will ultimately help us WHILE helping others.
This is where I must bow out and simply say that at one point or another EVERYONE will come to a point where they realize their "right" and "just" actions had nothing to do with faith based morality, however THEIR thoughts and IDEAS of what was "right" and "just" were involved. And thoughts generally amount to ineffective wastes of synapses- indoctrinated from birth (which adds up to a lot of wasted synapses.) Most people do not think the "common sense" "courtesy based" society would work. And to them I ask..."how do you suppose we became who we are? And what of the code of Hammurabi?"
Right on, awesome question, you get a star from me...

Answer 9

There is no perfect society. No one can control another person to that extent. Too many rules/ laws just makes it easier to break them. Look at the ten commandments most likely the most basic set of laws ever set before man. Even the most faithful of Christians can't help but break at lest one in their life time.

I prefer to live by the Wiccan Rede:
"Do what you will, so long as it harms none"
z

Answer 10

My vote is for Antarctica. The few people who live there have everything to loose and nothing to gain if they don't follow the rules of honesty and self-moderation. Law has no relative value in bitter cold.