Preferensism is a name I coined to describe a society based on individual preferences. The motto is "from each according to his preferences, to each according to her preferences." It is based on social choice, which amalgamates individual preferences in order to formulate an overall societal preference, and utilitarianism, which is based on the greatest good for the greatest number. Pundits have pooh-poohed utilitarianism because "you cannot maximize two independent variables simultaneously." What do they know? It turns out (as mathematicians like to say) that you can maximize the greatest good of a society according to some reasonable measure. Then assuming there are many ways to do this, which would be the case in any imaginable society, you could choose that way which minimizes inequality. Hence you would have the greatest good, and given that accomplishment, the greatest good for the greatest number.
Given a set of individual preferences by each individual in society, the algorithm or method for combining them would try to get each individual an individualized solution as close to his first preference as possible consistent with maximizing satisfaction, utility or happiness (whatever you want to call it) over the whole society. Imagine a society based on the Gross Domestic Happiness (GDH) as opposed to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Preferensism would generalize the concept of voting and merge the political and economic systems. Just as proportional representation is a generalized voting scheme which guarantees that each minority is represented in parliament according to its percentage in the general population, preferensism would obtain economic and political solutions tailored to each individual insofar as is possible. For instance, a set of preferences might entail 100 work -consumption scenarios. First preference might be to work 10 hours a week and receive the equivalent of $10,000.00 worth of purchasing power. Last preference might be to work 60 hours a week and receive the equivalent of $500.00 worth of purchasing power. When amalgamated over the whole society the individual might end up with a solution in which he worked 30 hours a week in return for $2000.00 worth of purchasing power.
Each set of preferences would be treated democratically. That is to say that each would have one unit of voting power. But instead of voting for a solution that applied to the whole society such as the election of a President, the individual would be voting for a solution that applied only to himself insofar as economic issues were concerned. Politically, which is to say for issues for which an individualized solution is not possible, Preferensism would obtain a solution as close to an individualized solution as possible. That is the same solution might apply to all the individuals in a certain geographical area, for example, while a different solution would apply to individuals living ion a different geographical area. Also the society would approach a direct as opposed to a representational democracy since citizens would be "voting" on goods and services consumed collectively as well as those consumed individually. Finally, if only one outcome is feasible and there are only two possible alternatives, voting would resemble the typical election we're all familiar with such as the election of a President.
Therefore, as the "voting" became more political and less economic, outcomes or solutions would apply to larger and larger minorities, and, as the voting became more economic and less political, it would apply to smaller and smaller minorities and ultimately to the individual when it concerned his or her work-consumption situation.
For more information on Preferensism, see my website: Social Choice and Beyond.