The Egalitarian Moral World Model

A Moral and Structural Framework for Egalitarian Democracy

DOCUMENT PURPOSE

This is not a platform or manifesto. It is a moral world model: a systematic way of mapping actors, resources, and power so that democratic organizing can be evaluated, designed, and justified consistently.

It connects moral intuitions to institutional design and the operational exercise of sovereignty. Technical EVU documents (schema, protocol, organizing mechanics) assume this logic; this document makes it explicit.

Function: This serves as the moral constitution underlying the Egalitarian Voter Union system - the reference framework for legitimacy tests, property analysis, and sovereignty mechanics.

Relationship to other documents:

This document: Moral foundations and structural logic (the “why” and “by what right”)
Democratic Framework: Public-facing political translation (accessible language)
EVU Protocol: Organizational implementation (the operational “how”)

CORE COGNITIVE FRAMES

These five statements are the named frames this model generates - the cognitive handles people should remember:

Frame 1: Freedom = No Domination

Freedom is the absence of arbitrary power over your life conditions, not the absence of rules.

Frame 2: Democracy = Collective Governance of Life Conditions

Democracy means the people collectively govern the commons as equals, not just voting periodically.

Frame 3: Advantage ≠ Domination

Having skills, resources, or organization (advantage) is acceptable. Having arbitrary power over others’ survival (domination) is not.

Frame 4: Rules Enable Freedom

Rules that prevent domination enable equal freedom for all. They are not restrictions on freedom, but conditions for it.

Frame 5: Organization Transforms Authority Into Power

Collective organization transforms moral authority (sovereignty) into operational governing power through measured solidarity and coordinated action.

1. CORE MORAL FOUNDATIONS

All legitimate action flows from these intuitions about how humans should relate and organize life:

Equality / Relational Parity

People should relate as equals in moral and political terms
Arbitrary power over others violates this principle
Test: Can both parties engage on equal terms, or does one have arbitrary control over the other?

Fairness / Reciprocity

Rules and agreements should prevent unfair advantage
Everyone affected by a rule should participate in shaping it
Test: Were those affected given meaningful voice in creating this rule?

Protection of Life and Flourishing

Society should secure conditions necessary for individuals to survive, thrive, and pursue meaningful goals
No one should have unilateral control over someone else’s survival or essential wellbeing
Test: Can someone arbitrarily deny another person access to life necessities?

Collective Responsibility

Individuals and groups share the duty to sustain and govern commons and life-supporting systems
Cooperation is necessary for equality and security
Test: Is this burden shared collectively, or imposed on individuals without collective support?

Rule-Based Accountability

Authority is legitimate only if it is constrained by rules created and enforced collectively
Unaccountable or arbitrary power is illegitimate
Test: Can this power be exercised without constraint, or is it bound by collectively-created rules?

2. THE COGNITIVE MAP: Actors, Resources, and Power

Actors

Individuals

People with agency, preferences, and capacity to act within collective systems
Can participate in collective governance as equals
Have both rights (to life conditions) and responsibilities (to maintain collective systems)

Groups / Collectives

Organized bodies exercising collective governance
Examples: worker unions, community assemblies, citizen organizations, cooperatives
The operational form through which popular sovereignty is exercised

Institutions

Mechanisms for administering rules, enforcing agreements, and protecting life conditions
Legitimate only when accountable to collective governance
Examples: democratic governments, regulatory bodies, public services

Resources / The Commons

What they are:

All conditions necessary for life and flourishing
Not “unowned” - collectively governed through democratic decision-making

Examples:

Material: housing, healthcare, food systems, clean water, stable climate
Infrastructure: transportation, energy systems, communication networks
Social: education, knowledge, care systems, public spaces
Natural: air, water, land, ecological systems

How they’re governed:

Collectively through democratic institutions
To prevent any individual or group from gaining arbitrary control
Through rules that ensure access based on need, not arbitrary power

Power Relations

Advantage

Comparative positioning that allows someone to achieve goals more effectively than others
Morally neutral unless it enables domination
Examples:
- Skill or expertise in a domain
- Temporary coordination capacity
- Organized collective strength
- Access to resources for use (not control over others)

Domination

Arbitrary power over others’ life conditions
The capacity to control whether others survive, thrive, or access necessities
Morally illegitimate - violates equality, fairness, and protection of life
Examples:
- Controlling whether someone can access healthcare
- Power to make someone homeless
- Ability to eliminate someone’s livelihood at will
- Control over basic survival resources

The Critical Distinction:

Having advantage through skill, organization, or temporary access to resources is not the same as having arbitrary power over others’ survival or flourishing.

The worker who is highly skilled has advantage. The landlord who can make you homeless has domination.

3. LEGITIMACY OF POWER

Power is legitimate only if it aligns with the moral world model through these criteria:

1. Collective Authorization

Exercised on behalf of and accountable to the people affected
Not self-appointed or inherited
Subject to collective oversight and revision

2. Rule-Based Enforcement

Constrained by agreed-upon, transparent, fair rules
Not arbitrary or capricious
Applied consistently according to collectively-determined standards

3. Proportionality

Sufficient to enforce fairness or protect life
Not excessive or creating permanent control over individuals
Limited to what’s necessary for collective governance

4. Participation

Affected individuals have voice, input, and recourse
Decisions made through inclusive democratic process
Mechanisms for accountability and revision exist

5. Temporary and Conditional

Power exists only as long as needed to uphold fairness and prevent domination
Subject to collective withdrawal if misused
Not permanent or inheritable

Summary Test

Legitimate exercise of power:

Collective
Accountable
Proportional
Rule-bound
Aligned with moral foundations

Illegitimate domination:

Arbitrary
Unaccountable
Structural (enables ongoing control)
Violates equality or fair play

4. OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Ownership / Claims

What ownership is:

A socially recognized claim to control resources
Not natural or pre-political
Subject to collective authorization based on moral foundations

Acceptable claims:

Personal possessions for use and enjoyment
Tools and resources for work
Housing for dwelling
Do not create arbitrary power over others

Illegitimate claims:

Claims that allow controlling whether others survive or thrive
Property that enables domination
Accumulation that creates arbitrary power
These enable domination and violate moral foundations

The test:

Does this claim give someone arbitrary power over another’s life conditions?
If yes → illegitimate (enables domination)
If no → acceptable (use-right or personal property)

Rules and Fair Play

What rules are for:

Prevent domination and enforce fairness
Enable equal participation
Protect life conditions for all
Constrain advantage from becoming domination

How rules gain legitimacy:

Created through collective participation
Applied consistently and transparently
Enforced through accountable mechanisms
Subject to revision by those affected

Enforcement is both moral and operational:

Must constrain claims or behaviors that create arbitrary power
Requires collective organization to be effective
Proportional to the domination being prevented

Collective Action

Why it’s necessary:

Individuals alone cannot prevent domination by concentrated claims
Organized collective power (operational sovereignty) allows people to:
- Govern resources democratically
- Enforce fair play
- Exercise governing authority
- Prevent accumulation of domination capacity

How it works:

Measure solidarity (assess coordinated capacity)
Make collective demands (backed by measured power)
Enforce proportionally and democratically (conditional support, organized opposition)
Exercise operational sovereignty (not bargaining for concessions)

The operational form of sovereignty:

People exercising rightful governing authority collectively
Through organization → decision → enforcement
Measured, accountable, proportional, rule-based

5. DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION

Understanding Current Reality

The problem:

Societies dominated by private arbitrary power already operate under illegitimate power structures
Concentrated wealth = accumulated domination capacity
Current property forms enable arbitrary control over others’ survival
This violates all five moral foundations

Not chaos → order, but illegitimate → legitimate power

The Transition Process

Legitimate transition means:

Replacing arbitrary private control with accountable collective governance
Transforming property forms from domination-enabling to use-rights/democratic governance
Restoring equality by preventing accumulation of arbitrary power
Enforcing fair play through collectively-created rules
Ensuring life conditions for all through commons governance

How it happens:

Through organized collective action (operational sovereignty)
Measured solidarity → collective demands → proportional enforcement
Democratic authorization at every step
Rule-based, accountable, participatory process

The moral basis:

Respects the moral world model (equality, fairness, life protection, collective responsibility, rule-based accountability)
Restores equality by preventing domination
Enforces fair play through democratic rules
Ensures life conditions through commons governance

6. COGNITIVE FRAMES FOR PUBLIC USE

These restate the core frames from the beginning, but in outward-facing language for communication and persuasion rather than internal architecture.

The model generates five core frames that translate complex institutional logic into accessible political language:

Frame 1: Freedom = No Domination

You are free when no one has arbitrary power over your life conditions
Rules preventing domination enable freedom
“Freedom to dominate” is tyranny, not freedom

Frame 2: Democracy = Collective Governance of Life Conditions

Not just voting, but actual governing authority
The people are sovereign - not representatives, markets, or wealth
Requires equality, participation, and accountability

Frame 3: Advantage ≠ Domination

Advantage (skill, organization, resources) is acceptable
Domination (arbitrary power over survival) is not
The line: does this create control over others’ life conditions?

Frame 4: Rules Enable Freedom

Collectively created to prevent unfair advantage
Enable equal freedom by constraining domination
Not restrictions, but conditions for relating as equals

Frame 5: Organization Transforms Authority Into Power

The sovereign people exercise operational sovereignty through organization
Measured solidarity + collective demands + enforcement
Not bargaining - exercising rightful governing authority

Using These Frames

These are cognitive anchors, not full arguments. When communicating:

Lead with the frame: “Freedom means no one has arbitrary power over you. Wealth concentration creates that power. We’re preventing domination.”

Not the full institutional logic: “Well, according to the legitimacy test applying moral foundations 1, 3, and 5…”

The frames activate moral intuitions. The full model (sections 1-5) provides the structural logic those intuitions rest on.

7. LEGITIMACY TEST (Quick Reference)

The Five-Question Test

Ask: Does this action, claim, or rule…

1. Preserve equality?

Does it prevent arbitrary power over others?
Does it allow people to relate as equals?

2. Enforce fairness?

Were those affected able to participate in creating it?
Does it prevent unfair advantage from becoming domination?

3. Protect life?

Does it secure conditions necessary for survival and flourishing?
Does it prevent anyone from having unilateral control over others’ essential wellbeing?

4. Respect collective responsibility?

Does it support collective governance of commons?
Does it enable cooperation rather than imposing individual burden?

5. Maintain rule-based accountability?

Is it constrained by collectively-created rules?
Is it accountable and proportional?

The Verdict

If YES to all five: → Legitimate (aligns with moral foundations)

If NO to any: → Illegitimate / Anti-democratic (violates moral foundations)

Application Examples

Wealth concentration enabling control over healthcare access:

Equality? NO - creates arbitrary power over life/death
Fairness? NO - those denied healthcare had no say in this arrangement
Protect life? NO - enables unilateral control over survival
Collective responsibility? NO - privatizes what should be commons governance
Accountability? NO - arbitrary power, not rule-based

Verdict: Illegitimate domination

Progressive taxation preventing domination:

Equality? YES - prevents accumulation of arbitrary power
Fairness? YES - democratically authorized rules
Protect life? YES - ensures resources for collective wellbeing
Collective responsibility? YES - collective governance of commons
Accountability? YES - rule-based, proportional, democratic

Verdict: Legitimate exercise of collective power

Worker cooperatives:

Equality? YES - workers relate as equals in workplace governance
Fairness? YES - those affected (workers) participate in decisions
Protect life? YES - democratic governance protects livelihoods
Collective responsibility? YES - collective governance of workplace
Accountability? YES - democratic rules, worker oversight

Verdict: Legitimate form of economic organization

Landlordism (ownership enabling eviction/homelessness):

Equality? NO - landlord has arbitrary power over housing access
Fairness? NO - tenant had no say in property arrangements
Protect life? NO - enables unilateral control over essential shelter
Collective responsibility? NO - privatizes housing commons
Accountability? NO - arbitrary power with minimal constraints

Verdict: Illegitimate domination

8. HOW THE MODEL WORKS TOGETHER

The Flow of Moral Logic

MORAL FOUNDATIONS
(Equality, Fairness, Life Protection, Collective Responsibility, Accountability)
                              ↓
COGNITIVE MAP
(Actors: Individuals, Collectives, Institutions)
(Resources: The Commons - collectively governed)
(Power: Advantage OK, Domination NOT OK)
                              ↓
LEGITIMACY CRITERIA
(Collective, Accountable, Proportional, Rule-Based, Participatory, Temporary)
                              ↓
OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
(Acceptable claims: use-rights, personal property)
(Illegitimate claims: domination-enabling property)
(Rules enforce fairness, prevent domination)
(Collective action exercises sovereignty)
                              ↓
DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION
(Replace arbitrary control with collective governance)
(Transform property forms to prevent domination)
(Restore equality, enforce fair play, ensure life conditions)
                              ↓
PUBLIC DOCTRINE
(Freedom = no domination)
(Democracy = collective governance as equals)
(Advantage OK, domination not)
(Rules enable fairness)
(Organization = operational sovereignty)

Why This Is Coherent

1. Single moral foundation:

All five principles derive from the basic premise that humans should relate as equals
Each reinforces the others

2. Clear distinction between legitimate and illegitimate:

Advantage vs. domination (clear line)
Use-rights vs. domination-property (clear line)
Collective vs. arbitrary power (clear line)

3. Operationally actionable:

Legitimacy test provides clear assessment tool
Operational implications show what to do
Public doctrine provides accessible language

4. Internally consistent:

No contradictions between principles
Each concept supports the others
Follows logically from foundations to implications

5. Excludes opposing frameworks:

Claims defending domination become illegitimate by definition
Arguments for arbitrary power violate moral foundations
Market fundamentalism contradicts collective governance
Unconditional support violates sovereignty

9. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FRAMEWORKS

How This Model Connects to Practical Organizing

The Egalitarian Democratic Framework (commons governance, property forms, sovereignty) is the public-facing version of this moral model:

Translates moral foundations into accessible political language
Applies the cognitive map to contemporary politics
Uses the legitimacy test to evaluate policies and claims
Implements operational implications through voter unions, collective action

The Voter Union model is the organizational implementation:

Operational sovereignty (collective action exercising governing authority)
Two-poll system (measuring solidarity = assessing coordinated capacity)
Conditional support (proportional enforcement)
Platform development (collective rule-creation)

The Commons/Enclosure analysis is the historical application:

Property form transformation (domination-enabling vs. use-rights)
Enclosure as usurpation of collective governance
Reclaiming democratic property forms
Historical legitimacy for contemporary organizing

All Three Work Together

The Moral World Model = foundational principles and logic The Democratic Framework = public translation and political application
The Organizing Strategy = operational implementation

10. USING THIS MODEL

For Analysis

When evaluating any political claim, policy, or arrangement:

Apply the legitimacy test
Identify whether it creates domination or advantage
Assess against moral foundations
Determine: legitimate or illegitimate?

For Communication

When talking to others:

Start with moral foundations people already accept
Show how your position follows from those foundations
Show how opposing positions violate them
Use the clear distinctions (advantage/domination, etc.)

For Strategy

When building political power:

Organize collectively (operational sovereignty)
Create rules through democratic participation
Enforce proportionally and accountably
Transform institutions to align with moral foundations
Prevent domination through collective governance

For Self-Check

When uncertain about a position:

Does it align with all five moral foundations?
Does it create domination or just advantage?
Does it pass the legitimacy test?
Would I accept this arrangement if positions were reversed?

This is the Egalitarian Moral World Model: the foundational architecture for evaluating, designing, and justifying democratic organizing.

For public communication, use the five cognitive frames.
For institutional design, use the legitimacy test and operational implications.
For strategic analysis, use the complete structural logic.

APPENDIX: Key Distinctions Reference

Advantage vs. Domination

Advantage = comparative positioning, skills, organization (morally neutral)
Domination = arbitrary power over others’ life conditions (morally illegitimate)

Use-Rights vs. Domination-Property

Use-rights = claim to use resources without controlling others (legitimate)
Domination-property = claim enabling arbitrary power over others (illegitimate)

Collective vs. Arbitrary Power

Collective = democratically authorized, rule-based, accountable (operational sovereignty)
Arbitrary = unaccountable, not rule-based, enables domination (illegitimate)

Rules vs. Domination

Rules prevent domination and enable fairness (legitimate constraint)
Domination violates rules and creates arbitrary control (illegitimate power)

Democracy vs. Oligarchy

Democracy = people collectively governing commons as equals through operational sovereignty
Oligarchy = concentrated arbitrary power over collective life (illegitimate)

Sovereignty vs. Bargaining

Operational sovereignty = rightful governing authority exercised collectively (what we have)
Bargaining = negotiation between parties (implies equal standing we’re asserting)

Transition vs. Chaos

Current state = illegitimate domination (already chaos in moral terms)
Transition = replacing arbitrary control with legitimate collective governance (restoring order)