Paul Antonik Wakfer wrote:
> This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
> OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
> the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
> RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
> stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
> Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
> within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
> special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
> OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.
>
> This article has come about because Kitty has thoroughly understood
> and integrated the ideas of the Self Sovereign Individual Project,
> particularly from the essay introducing the concept of Social
> Meta-Needs with it twin implementations through Social Preferencing
> and the Natural Social Contract. I was particularly pleased that the
> piece also required very little editing from me. Of course it greatly
> helps that she was a part of the discovery and development of those
> ideas, but such deep understanding and full integration is certainly
> not beyond the powers of many others.
>
> We both look forward to a time when many more people (first a few,
> then dozens and finally hundreds! :-) have accomplished this deep
> understanding and full integration and are presenting their own unique
> and persuasive examples and interpretations of these novel and
> profound social ideas in practical human social action.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> [The RRND commentary webpage currently has my article at the top of
> its list - http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary :>)
>
> As I wrote Tom when I sent him notice of the article's publication, I
> purposely submitted this article, Tax/Regulation Protests are Not
> Enough at OpEdNews.com because it is a "progressive" news site and
> while many there have some of the wrong ideas of how to get to and
> even in some ways what constitutes a better society, it is clear that
> all writers and commenters there really do want one. I think that
> there can be inroads made by reaching out beyond the "choir" with this
> view of those who do not currently hold some of the same views by
> finding some foundational common points. I am pleased that the
> managing editor, after rereading and reconsidering, moved my
> submission from a diary entry to which she had downgraded it, to a
> headlined article. **Kitty]

Thank you for sending the notification about, and link to, Kitty's
article on OpEdNews. I spent some time to create a profile on the site
so I can comment on someone else's comment. I enjoyed the article. The
following is an excerpt from Kitty's article that I will comment on:

(begin-quote)"Today (2009), electronic access to countless sources of
information (many not even available 40 years ago) and rapid lengthy
communication with virtually anyone else can be had by the vast majority
of those in the industrialized areas of the world and much of what is
still on the road to "development". It is a rare person (adult and
child) in the US who does not have access to, if not actually own, hir
own computer; many have computer features in their cellular phones. For
an individual in the US (and much of the world) these days to be
informed on everything that happens currently or in the past and on
ideas published by anyone currently or in the past is now mostly a
matter of interest/desire/time rather than purely technical and/or cost
availability.

So the questions can and should be asked, "Why does the individual still
need to be ruled by others? Is there not a better way now to achieve
social order than by some centralized governing body to which an
individual can, at best, only have an effect if part of a majority
casting votes for a particular candidate/bond/referendum in a particular
election?"" (end-quote)

Meta
A standard old method of quoting a long piece (as above) is to use
"guillemets", which are either ">>" or "<<" marks at the beginning and
end of the quote (see Kitty's example of this in her response to one
of the commenters on OpEdNews). You could also use something equivalent
to my Meta tags as: "Quote" and "/Quote" (which originate from the
methods used in markup languages).
/Meta

I am commenting on this passage in particular because when I read it, I
integrated several ideas which I hadn't previously considered (see my
comment tonight to JonmarkP, where I discuss these ideas). More
specifically, I hadn't considered the idea that the functions of
government may be obsolete *because of* communication technologies
such as the Internet. When information exchange is as fast and
readily-accessible as it is now (and may continue to improve), it
greatly facilitates cooperation between individuals for mutual benefit.
However, such cooperation can't take place unless *both* (or all)
parties pursue the same outcomes. Pursuit of an outcome requires
motivation, motivation requires interest, interest requires recognition
of a need or desire, and such recognition requires *paying attention
to reality* - i.e. *being responsible for one's life*.

I have read about the "democratization" of China, where such
communication technologies are enabling individuals to discuss ideas
that are "forbidden" by the government. However, I hadn't applied the
same idea to the United States and other "Western, developed" countries.
Kitty's article explores this idea by discussing government,
inter-individual cooperation, and both of the previous, in the light
of the historical lack of efficient communication technologies.

I recommend the article.

--Max Peto/Steve Floyd Jr.