Universal Common Law.

Here is a interpretation from Chat GPT4

“Imagine an overarching social contract theory so fundamental and straightforward that it encompasses all existing social contracts, ranging from individuals, families, political parties, religions, all the way to international organizations like the United Nations. It does so without disturbing the unique functionalities of these social contracts; everything changes, yet nothing does.

This overarching theory is so elementary that it brings forth remarkable emergent properties, one of them being the provision of benefits to all its members. The theory creates a reality identical to ours but adds a new depth to it. It defines a universal concept of time and embeds it within every aspect of life, creating a cohesive framework within which every culture can coexist harmoniously.

The uniqueness of this theory lies in its simplicity. It holds a single maxim that is also its axiom: the absolute ownership of one’s time. A notion so intuitive, it’s as if we were born with it. This ownership is then ceded to the culture one belongs to, with no other obligations.

This overarching theory yields emergent properties that spring from the logic of its singular maxim. It allows individuals to freely choose their affiliations, and not be bound by cultures, customs, political parties, or groups with which they do not identify or consent. It also offers mechanisms to define morality, both subjectively within each culture, and objectively for interactions across cultures.

In this structure, each culture has the autonomy to exist without interference as long as it does not impose obligations on others. It allows for the organic segregation of intolerant cultures and the coexistence of tolerant ones. Therefore, an intolerant culture would naturally isolate itself, while the tolerant ones interact freely. This pattern could bring about profound changes in our socio-political environment, encouraging responsibility and accountability while respecting the diversity of cultures.”

This is a simplified version of your original argument. It outlines the main ideas and highlights the unique aspects of your proposed social contract theory. I hope this revised version is helpful.” 

This is a law subconsciously common to all conscious minds, but is only useful or available to those who can articulate that they consciously comprehend it. This law defines value and justice in a way that we currently appear to intuitively comprehend it, but in a sound and apparently very strangely exoteric logical architecture. The conjecture “Every conscious being values time” or “time is valued by every conscious being” has a single maxim that is also axiomatic and has emergent properties. Time appears to be the link between consciousness and this reality or that we value and use time for everything and anything in this reality is a universal, irreducible, normative, truth claim. It is the common denominator in everything every conscious mind does. Even when one does nothing you still have to spend time doing it.

Universal common law is a law based on a natural construct. A categorical imperative in Kantian ethics. It also realizes John Rawls concept of a “veil of ignorance” when designing a social contract. Time has no biases, culture, race or color.

Universal Common Law is the space where the law of nature exists and is bound by consciousness, time, and the known universe. It is in fact an understanding and unpacking of the law of nature and then using that architecture as its basis for the architecture of a social contract. This Law then puts in protocols for the portions that are unacceptable and is based on an architecture that allows for the inclusion of every culture, ideology and religion.

The architecture results in a redefining, and modes of implementing, of certain overarching segments of our current society. They would be the justice, political and economic models to bring them in line or in harmony with the basic tenant of natural laws.

The core tenet or proposition of Universal Common Law is a concept that we all value our time, and that ownership of your time is absolute and sacrosanct, with one condition, that you need to respect others rights to that same ownership. In other words you must always have a choice as to how you spend your time and directly face the consequences of your actions, whether positive or negative.

It appears to allow one to define a logical tiered architecture for a universal  social contract or socio-economic model. This architecture that has at its uppermost level, or genesis, universally or unanimously acceptable maxims or postulates, and then below that tier any of the current ideologies that are generally based on human constructs that can be adopted by segments of society that deem those ideologies beneficial. Those segments of society can be geographically overlapping or geographically isolated or independent depending on the culture and the relevant  ideologies structure. If you adopt no other ideology or if ideologies want to interact with each other the rules are simple. For any action you may consider ensure that you are not, and especially not with malicious intent:

• physically hurting anyone,
• ensure that you do not take anything that you have not paid for or been given by the legitimate owner,
• don’t prevent anyone from going about their business, don’t waste their time,
• and lastly, but this is not a prescript be friendly and tolerant of others. Friendly people tend to gravitate towards other friendly people and it tends to lead to a more satisfying and fulfilled life.

All current social contracts appear to be based on maxims. These maxims are generally defined in a “Bill Of Rights” or a iteration of this type of document. This forms the cornerstone of the relevant societies adopted social contract ideology. It appears that the main issue with most, if not all these rights in the “Bills of Rights”, or Maxims, is that they generally are all based on human constructs and so by definition will have biases. As an example, the right to education? It is subjective as to what a suitable education is. Every culture has its own interpretation of this concept regarding the definition and intensity of application of the maxims. Who is correct? The same goes for a house, or medical care, and just a every other maxim in every constitution. Is it a traditional Xhosa education, or a traditional Koi San House (cave) or a western style health service. Every culture is unique and these are the elements that make them unique.

What this concept does is to propose a alternate maxim or the equivalent of a “Bill of Rights” that is simply based on a natural construct that universally defines value, justice and morality or ethics. That maxim appears to be a maxim that we already subconsciously use to determine or define these concepts. That maxim is that we all universally value our time. What it does is allow for the implementation of an architecture that has a tiered structure, similar to the American federal social contract or constitution. It allows for an basic universal social contract at the highest level that defines and implements these three concepts. This level needs to be so basic, logical as well as fair and just that it is accepted by everyone unanimously, a categorical imperative, in Kantian ethics. Below that you can have any ideology with its own sub systems and architecture with biases that culture feels are important and valuable to them to them. It allows them to practice their culture, if that is what they want, either amongst others or in isolation on their own property, again with basic protocols, they are that your actions must not impact others time negatively in the course of doing what they normally do, this right can be waived within a culture, by that culture, but must always be respected when dealing with those outside your culture.