--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "njnavarro2004" <njnavarro2004@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "njnavarro2004" <njnavarro2004@>
> wrote:
> >
> Hello Paul and Olafur, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
>
> <snip>
>

<snip>

>
> I spend a lot of time thinking along similar lines, and I've
> concluded that "human nature" itself is the culprit. It seems to me
> that unprincipled sociopaths, of which we apparently have far too
> many, will *always* seek power over others, by way of the state
> apparatus. They will always manage, eventually, to overcome any
> institutional restraints on their exercise of power, and they will
> ultimately drag the majority of the herd to destruction with them.
> That's the bleak view I have.
>
> [If I had that view then I would not want to continue living since
> I would know that the quality of life that I seek would forever be
> impossible. Instead, I have come to be convinced that large numbers
> of humans only have such a "nature" as you describe because they have
> never come to understand that it is actually in their rational self-
> interest to enter into long-term cooperative social arrangements with
> others and to automatically exchange with others the full value that
> they place on a good or service rather than always seeking to
> exchange as little as possible. If you will read some of my writings
> in the Self-Sovereign Individual Project and their discussion on this
> group, perhaps you will come to understand and accept the truth and
> the ultimate practicality of this approach. --Paul]


I see the problem as not so much a "lack of understanding" per se,
as it is a "closed mind" (to the extent there's actually a meaningful
distinction there).

IOW most peoples' minds are simply not open to any new ideas
whatsoever, whether it's dealing with life-extension,
social interaction, or the notion that their government is not what
they think it is, for example. And in my experience, it doesn't
matter how much evidence you put in front of them, they are simply
unable or unwilling to draw a rational conclusion from a set of
unambiguous facts, if it conflicts with some long-held idea.

I don't know if this is the desired and expected result of a state
education and/or other indoctrination programs, or whether it's a
common, unfortunate human congenital trait, but closed mindedness
and "collective thinking" seem to be the norm in human society, and
anyone with their own, different, ideas, is ridiculed.

[I think that it is not a matter of one or the other (closed minds versus lack
of understanding). There is always lack of understanding *before and until*
one's mind is opened to that understanding. Most people can and always will not
be able to understand (ie accept the validity) of something until they clearly
observe the action and effect (ie. "seeing is believing"). It is not enough to
try to convince people by either evidence or theory that some new idea is true
or some new method will work. Most people will always require a clear working
example (even close at hand) before they will accept it. Therefore, the way to
change society must always be to first find those who are more open minded and
get them to understand the truth. Then those people will start living by that
truth and will show the others by example. This is the only way that has ever
worked and I see no other possible way for a peaceful transition. --Paul]


I know in my case, it wasn't until I was in my late 30s that I was
able to shake off the effects of my statist brainwashing (if that's
what it was) and see the world in a much more realistic light.

[For me it began in my mid 20s when I understood that optimal
self-ordering/organization by automatic market mechanisms was possible instead
of needing to have society "run" by "experts". But although I have understood
the nature of the problem and the general form of solution since that time, it
took me 40 more years of thinking before I found a full solution and a method of
implementation. --Paul]

[I remember when I was 18 years old and had my first opportunity to vote for a
political party here in Iceland. Everyone around me was encouraging me to vote,
but I did not do it since I didn't think it was right to vote for a party that
didn't share my exact views, let alone a party that isn't even close. There is
no party or a person that I agree to 100% and voting for one, and thereby
allowing it to represent me, is like agreeing to something I don't agree with,
and that is just not right. It wasn't untill a few years later though, mainly
thanks to Paul's writings, that I began to see the problem much more clearly and
a possible solution to it. -°Olafur]


>
> [Such sociopaths as you describe will be powerless if there are no
> institutions and if none of the others will associate will them. IOW,
> we, the others, must ostracize the evil humans either into changing
> or out of existence. --Paul]

As I see it, where there are no institutions readily available that
can give them the power they seek, they'll create them; e.g., they'll
manipulate those of lesser intelligence, and create and become the
leader of a band of theives, etc., thus forcing potential victims to
band together in groups to protect themselves, thereby
creating what we might call "government".

[That is simply what has always happened. It is not what has to continue to
happen. There is no physical law that states it must always be so. The answer is
to gather together a sufficient number of people who are impervious to such
manipulation and will refuse to condone or associate with the the manipulators.
Those will then show the others that acting in this manner can stop the
manipulation by eliminating (socially ostracizing) the manipulators.

Once again, if you really think as you do, I don't see why you would want to
stay around anyway. --Paul]


>
> [Paul's foundational essay is "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for
> Optimal Human Interaction";
> http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html The most
> current work on the Natural Social Contract that is referred to in
> the essay is not yet linked to SelfSIP.org but those who read this
> group can access it (and the associated annotation files) at
> http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html **Kitty]

I'll check it out.

[Until you do and with thorough reading, Nelson, discussion on solutions to the
problems you see are really mostly hand wringing on your part. **Kitty]


Lastly, with regard to present goings-on in the world related to this
discussion, I should say this:

Just since this discussion began, some terrible things have happened
in the Mid-East, and it seems U.S. rulers have chosen, for all
intents and purposes, to "take sides" in yet another bloody, unjust
war.

[Kitty is reading about the mess going on between Israel and Lebanon and telling
me about it as I write this. She has been for some time a dedicated BBC news
reader and considers this the best source of information by far.
http://news.bbc.co.uk --Paul]

[BBC News has very thorough in-depth coverage of the major news items including
the current conflicts in the various parts of the world. The writers and editors
are not prone to sound bites and snippets which are all one gets if listening to
North American radio or TV news broadcasts. BBC News website is a good place to
read regularly IMO, whether as an only source, a start or in comparison with
other sites.
For background in re. current Lebanon/Israel see:
"Who are Hezbollah?" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4314423.stm
"Lebanon: Key Facts"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456976/html/nn1page1.stm

Inclusion of these links is not an invitation to discuss here at MoreLife Yahoo
the details of this particular political mess. They are provided only to let
readers know of better sources for news and historical background than US news
stations/websites. Discussion here is welcome and encouraged only as it relates
to the Self-Sovereign Individual Project solutions to the dysfunctional human
interactions seen so often. **Kitty]


I've been studying this event and related events in great detail, and
I must say, all things considered, I believe there is a very
significant chance that the U.S. will, perhaps conveniently from some
perspectives, be under some form of martial law before November.

[I don't see any reason for you to jump to such a conclusion! I don't see any
reason why the current messes in the Mid-East would cause this. This would have
been much more likely in the weeks after 9/11. --Paul]


I really hope I'm wrong, but it looks to me like horrific things are
apparently about to unfold there, likely with repercussions
that will be used as "justification" for a crackdown at home. I don't
see how the now painfully clear "agenda" involved here can be pursued
from this point on, from anything that even remotely resembles
a "constitutional republic".

[I think there are far too many USers with guns, local and even state law
enforcement agencies who would oppose this for it to be able to happen in the US
at this time. There is no way that the US has enough troops loyal to federal
command for the central government to accomplish it. It would be far more
possible to declare martial law in Canada (but not because Canada has enough
troops to implement it - they don't, but only from the point that fewer citizens
there would oppose the federal, provincial and local law enforcement agencies
who would likely all support it). --Paul]


Regards,
Nelson

Nelson J. Navarro