There should be a healthy level of interaction between the community and locals especially in a business, social, care, aid and education sense. Open classes available to all would be an appropriate venture, helping local homeless shelters with time and excess food, promoting educative systems and programs, organizing public debates between contentious groups or on serious issues like immigration, vaccination, global warming etc. Hopefully showing to people how real science works in opposition to hyperbole and media misrepresentation.
While there is an open door policy there must be some form of standards or at least trial period to avoid abuse and allow proper evaluation of new members. Highly skilled lay persons or transitory members will obviously require a different set of standards, if any, in comparison to someone wanting to make a lifetime commitment.
There should be an elected committee and official, both of which are created by draws of random lots, who decide new members. Each case from a retired university professor or a student who dropped out of school should be considered on their skills, situation and their motivations.
This has been mentioned numerous times before but in different forms the core principles, as opposed to purpose, are an ethical (e57), patient, humble, responsible group of researchers whose principle aim is to alleviate the suffering of mankind where it exists, to prepare for the unexpected, and to help the next generations live the best life possible.
On the previous post 99 I have had a few extra thoughts
There are times in extreme situations when this [following the laws of the host country] may cause a conflict of interest, take for example, a woman who was beheaded for practising witchcraft in Saudi Arabia, this followed the laws of the nation, and as such quite rightly caused international condemnation. How can one blithely say “follow the host countries rules without question”.
Similarly, what to do if a community member is called out as being a witch or sentenced in such a way? Or if a corrupt government or Nazi like dictatorship demands the community to obey oppressive, unethical rules.
In fact it may not even need to be that extreme what if a person arrives at the door begging for sanctuary because they are to be married against their will, or a minor who is experiencing abuse, an outspoken reporter who has been found to spread information about his corrupt government.
It would be simple to say; this is unlikely, this probably won’t occur but that would shy away from the simple question.
I am writing Exploration II which covers more of these moral ambiguities and questions of conflicts of state corruption vs. community ethics. Suffice to say I realise this is a complex issue and Exploration I is only intended as an initial foray into the concept of the community. It was never designed to cover every detail.
The founding members should draw up a universal code of conduct within the institution. This constitution should consider respecting the civil liberties of the individual, but there should be a system of induction available for the community’s lifetime members.
To be clear, all individuals’ rights and freedoms are to be protected, but it is not a certainty that all people can become lifetime members; this is the same as any institution. Although I would hope all transitory visitors are allowed temporary access.
[present note: this is written directly from the notebook and shows how confused my original thoughts were, this is an incoherent mess of thoughts ranging from the institutional structure of moral standards to forms of induction into the community, it then goes on to talk about visiting transient members. Things do improve in later texts as the focus improves.]