The balance of self and the consensus machine

What does it mean to be good apart from what does it mean to be knowing the good. How does that lead to doing the good.
A lot of people are concerned with what the rules are about doing the good. Some people are concerned with what they know apart from what the community has decided.
Some people are concerned with what the laws are apart from what nature commands. Some people are concerned with what the laws are in common with what nature commands.
In order to show that I know what is in common between the natural law and human law I had to demonstrate that I understand this in a new way. In order to approach people and make this presentation to them I had to connect that with a motive that made sense in my situation.
One thing I noticed back in 2010 that many people made a point of contention is that they don't allow the holding of something like drug use or alcohol use to be in favor of legally but not to be in favor of person personally. Or maybe that was just my perception but I think that kind of issue is actually common.
It is sort of revolutionary to hold that knowledge is a right that is separate from other legal rights. In order to claim knowledge as a right separate from other rights one has to prove that one has knowledge beyond what is common.
The reason for this is that if knowledge is common than a law about it has likely already been made. It is however a level of abstraction to hold your knowledge as separate from common understanding.
One of the few ways to demonstrate an understanding of this kind of separation is to have yourself tested at random over long periods of time to see wether you actually have a unique understanding. The only reason such a test would be ever conducted however is if the claimant to such knowledge had come up with an idea so revolutionary that somehow that could be justified.
The translation of certain abstractions into computer code is one such situation. Another thing which justifies this is the demonstration that certain concepts applicable to computer programming like Game Theory and heuristics also applies to human ethics. In fact these two issues are actually reciprocal to each other and balance each other out. One could for instance program their brain to represent self in breathing/speaking outwards and to represent deterministic algorithms when breathing/speaking inward. In doing so one could construct a dialogue between a free will and a consensus machine.
There is a sort of logic in this kind of dialogue that there is not in thought with oneself or in only the laws of society.
Another way to think of this is as an interplay between two lines drawn out; each line measures a space that it encloses. Each line for instance may draw a half circle of the same circle and they disappear at the same rate as they draw so you actually have a circle that's continuously redrawn by two lines.
The game theory of this is that the lines are competing for space and also defining their spaces just like in the game of Go. Just like in that game there is a constant trade-off. As long as you have the two lines you have to have both timing and you have mind.
The timing is the line of nature or a consensus of society and the mind is the line of ego or self. Many things in life have this symmetry and it's really simple if you think about it abstractly like this. But the future depends on humanity understanding and balancing free will with either nature or society.
In order to make this sort of task easier the creation of several smart contracts has been carried out that allow the definition in very precise terms to be programmed into computers and networks so that humans do not have to continuously try to solve this equation. But until this is perfected humans will have to endeavor to show that they have a knowledge that gives them free will rather than just having to follow the common consensus without knowing why.