Guybrush

Both.

Compromise as in giving up freedoms. You may like to drive much faster than what is permitted on the freeway, but you may choose not to because it is against a law which is in place in order to make the roads safer for all who use them. When you choose not to break the speed limit even though you'd like to, I generally consider that an example of the compromises I talk of.

In my idea of a good society, an act done for the common good will generally have rewards. If money spent on taxes makes a better education for your children, then you have been rewarded. In a general sense, anything you do that somehow betters society rewards you when you are part of it. There may always be exceptions, such as your money paying for covering a pot hole you will never come across, but the ideal society would strive to create an environment where "selflessness" actually is rewarded so that the altruism required for society to work is at a minimum. In my ideal society, people would feel that the common good includes them.

Also, at the risk of going off topic a bit - if you as a member of a society do become rich and successful, I think you should recognize that you became successful also part because of society. Most likely, you didn't print your own money in your self-built house (put jokingly) and so your success would be dependent on everyone else who bought your services or paid for your products etc. Society made up the environment which you were successful in and, in my opinion, people should be appreciative of that.

To me, an exploiter is someone who abuses a system of give and take for selfish reasons. Let's say there's a system of "I scratch your back and you scratch mine". If you let people scratch your back but don't repay the favour, then you are exploiting that system to your own benefit. Following laws for the common good is, generally speaking, such a system. You could be an exploiter for example by cheating the wellfare system, something there are laws against doing of course.

I have no problem with recognizing that different societies have different laws and I believe my general ideals could be applied to an indigenous culture living in a jungle as well as a western modern society.

That's asking for a lot, but I'll try and give an answer

In my ideal democracy, the people are ultimately in charge of their own happiness. For them to be happy, they have to decide on good political decisions. In order for them to do so, they should have a good common education and they should have good general wealth so that they are best able to recognize what is important and have the luxury of being in a position where they can vote for that.

Ex. To clarify with what I mean by the latter, I can use an example from Norway. We've voted no to be part of the european union. The general reason is that norwegian farmers would not be able to compete with foreign farmers. When the norwegian majority votes no, they do so knowing that they have voted for higher priced agricultural products, so they have voted for having to pay more for food than they otherwise would have to had Norway been part of the Union. I believe that was the right choice for the common good, but I believe if people were poor and had to vote with their wallets instead, they would have voted for being in the european union and norwegian farmers would suffer the consequences. Being wealthy enabled/gave people the luxury of voting for the common good and because the majority of voters got their will, the majority are happy.

A good common education is important. That means you should not have a society with a lower class which is undereducated because they would be less able to vote for the good of the society which is the best way to ensure their long term happiness. There are many feedback loops that strengthen social class differences, for example private schools that give better education than public schools and are only available to a minor elite. If having a better education means you're more likely to do well in society, but lower classes are restricted access to that because of a lack of resources, then you can create a democracy where even the majority of voters are comparatively less educated, less resourceful and (I'd argue) less likely to vote for what would best benefit them long term and more likely to vote instead for what benefits them short term.

In my ideal democracy, it's not necessarily important to define what happiness actually is as long as voters have some idea of what it means to them and use their influence to move society in that direction. You can of course try to measure people's feeling of content by polls or try to find a measure of discontent, for example crime rates, but for the sake of this argument, I don't think happiness is necessarily important to define much beyond a general content with life. I hope that in a well educated, wealthy democracy where people have the same general opportunities, they will feel happy and recognize that that society is built on some general values that have ensured that happiness. They would then wish to use their influence in the democracy to perpetuate those general values in the future.

I think it may be important to point out that these are just some general principles that I think would make a good society, but not something I think is always feasible or easily achieved.

__________________
Something Completely Different