On the Reasonableness of Mutual Aid Rules

Some members say our definition of critical illness is unscientific and unreasonable.

Given the complexity of disease, whether something is reasonable or scientific can always be disputed. What is reasonable today may not be reasonable tomorrow; what is reasonable tomorrow may be overturned by science the day after. So on the boundaries there will always be disputes, and this can never be fully resolved.

The foundation of the Commune's existence rests more on fairness—that is, rules apply to everyone. Whether reasonable or not, as long as they apply universally and fairly, that is the basis on which the Commune exists.

To a certain degree, fairness matters more than reasonableness.

Because when the Commune sacrifices fairness in pursuit of reasonableness, given the complexity of certain issues, it will inevitably pay for it with its credibility, and there will inevitably be the possibility of back-room dealings.

So, since we published the covenant terms long ago, we can only act according to those terms, whether or not they are reasonable. Anything unreasonable must be revised carefully.

When a member says a term is unreasonable, can we change it on the spot? If we could change it every time instead of following the terms published beforehand, could the Commune still be trusted?