Integrity or the Lash?

Is it possible that ONE of the keys to creating peaceful, non-coercive communities is the degree to which “integrity” is the driver for people when they interact with others?
Does integrity emerge from a balance of distributed power, or does integrity produce an ideational distributed balance of power?
If integrity, as a general principle, is followed freely, even (preferably) eagerly, then “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” might very well self-govern potentially coercive action before it’s even taken, no laws, no guns needed.
Of course, I’ll let you define integrity, but I will define it as-
An internal compass that compels an individual to deliver fruit that authentically reflects quality, excellence, discipline, reliability, truthfulness, consistency, and loyalty.
TL:DR- Integrity is quality and certainty.
The more consistently and clearly individuals (and, consequently, aggregate expressions of the numbers of similar individuals), acting of their own free will and volition, reflect such characteristics, the less prone that type of community would be to entertaining the promises of peace in exchange for a surrender of ‘freedoms.’
But again, the question remains-
IS integrity an essential element for a peaceful, non-coercive community?
I submit that it is.
But where I am less certain, is this- is integrity the fruit of communities in which accountability is difficult to avoid (a situation where there is more distributed power than in other communities) or does the emergence of individuals practicing some forms of principles of “integrity” precede the emergence of communities that have this distributed power, this system where accountability is difficult to avoid?

About Paul Gordon 3006 Articles
Paul Gordon is the publisher and editor of iState.TV. He has published and edited newspapers, poetry magazines and online weekly magazines. He is the director of Social Cognito, an SEO/Web Marketing Company. You can reach Paul at pg@istate.tv