--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

Thanks for responding. Glad to hear that you're getting settled in without too
much headache.

> Meta
> [Welcome to MoreLife Yahoo, Roy - we're a few days later than planned
> since we our phone here in rural Ontario was not operating per
> scheduled seasonal arrangements when we returned (in the wee hours of
> Monday 5/4 after leaving AZ early Friday evening 5/2) and therefore we
> were without Internet connection until this morning.

Understood. Moving is always a pain.

> First off, I want to publicly thank and commend you for taking me up
> on the invitation to continue our discussion at MoreLife Yahoo. While
> I have offered this invitation on numerous occasions at OpEdNews.com
> and other blogs and forums in the past, you are the first person to
> directly come forward and do so.

No thanks needed. Value for value, remember. But, I wonder why others have not
accepted your invitation.

> Since much of a reply to your message is fundamental to the Social
> Meta-Needs theory, of which Paul is the discoverer/formulator, he is
> responding directly to much of it. As is our practice and we've
> described in the past, although we always edit each other's writings,
> each individually takes "authorship" for any writing that s/he
> initiates and organizes, which is typically any that falls into a
> specific area of interest/expertise for that person.
>
> Recently and in response to this message we have decided that we will
> more often construct separate responses before then blending them
> since in that manner neither of us will have hir thinking/creativity
> blunted by reading the other's response first. In this manner better
> overall responses should be forthcoming from our collaborative
> efforts. **Kitty]
> /Meta
>
> Meta
> I am going to split this response into several parts because each one
> needs a lengthy explanation to be anywhere near complete and persuasive.
> /Meta

Before I respond specifically to your comments, I think I need to make an
overall clarification regarding the libertarian statement that I referenced. I
consider this statement to be only a statement of PRINCIPLE, not a statement of
PHILOSOPHY. As a statement of Principle, it is only intended to summarize the
overall founding ideology of a political system of governance. In order to
appeal to a broad audience, by necessity, any statement of Principle must use
words with commonly understood meanings. Of course, these admittedly imprecise
words leave room for interpretation and debate.
From my reading, libertarian political/ideological principles appear to be based
on the philosophy of Objectivism. Although, I don't think that the leaders of
the Libertarian Party realize this.

> On 04/29/2009 01:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
> > Kitty,
> > I wanted to respond more specifically to several points you made at
> > OEN. I'll focus primarily on one paragraph of yours first, where you
> > talk about libertarian concepts. I apologize in advance, if I'm not
> > fully up to speed with the "in-line" thing.
> >
> > [You have done great. --Paul]
> >
> >
> > It may be helpful to tell you that I consider myself to be a
> > libertarian, but I am NOT a member of the Libertarian Party.
>
> Even though I always had some differences in thinking with other
> libertarians (which differences were eventually crystallized in my
> Social Meta-Needs theory), for want of a better description and
> because my political/social philosophy was closer to that of
> "libertarian" than any other currently used name, I also called myself
> a libertarian from about 1975 until about 2000 when I met Kitty and
> began to develop the foundation for social order that I now call
> Social Meta-Needs theory. Although from about mid 80's I also used the
> more explicit, but less known term, "Voluntaryist" (google it).
>
> Before 1975, since 1962, I was an Objectivist (in philosophical
> agreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy), but even then also in
> disagreement with some notions (which again were related to what
> eventually became Social Meta-Needs theory). And before 1962 I was
> essentially a utilitarian humanist without using those words, but
> again those unformed thoughts of best social actions were later a
> major driver for the development of Social Meta-Needs theory.
>
> During the late 70s (before I knew better :) I was very active in the
> Libertarian Party in both the Province of Ontario and the Canadian
> federal political area, into which I also put a great deal of money.
> However, by about 1981 my continuing reading and thinking (spurred on
> by my being expelled from the Libertarian Party of Canada - long story
> not worth the time) had already transformed me away from any possible
> connection with a political party into a market anarchist.

Interesting. It gives me some perspective on your intellectual background.

> The political/social structure implied by Social Meta-Needs theory
> is a form of market anarchist society, but importantly one which is
> effectively guided by a social contract voluntarily executed by all
> members of the society (anyone who has not executed it is not a member
> of that society and has none of the privileges granted to each other
> by the members). I think of the social philosophy and operation of the
> society so formed as being a synthesis of libertarianism, objectivism
> and humanist utilitarianism.

Thank you for the perspective on your intellectual growth. I started as
darwenist, evolved into libertarian, and just found out that I am an objectivist
too. However, I've got a real problem with the ethics behind the utilitarian
concept of, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." For a lot of
people, this translates into, "the good of the many, outweighs the good of the
one." Dangerous ground.

> > I feel that, as a rule, party politics creates compromises that
> > dilute or contradict founding principles. The Libertarian Party is
> > no exception to this rule. I have a couple of serious philosophical
> > differences with their party platform.
>
> It is quite true that the nature of adhering to the format and methods
> of a political party creates conflicts among those working within that
> format. The reason for this is because the goal of any political party
> and the methods of reaching that goal are not consistent with reality,
> since the voting democratic process of majority rule by force is not
> consistent with the reality of human requirements for optimum life.

Agreed. Majority rule implies minority slavery.

> Anything not consistent with reality is essentially invalid; and it is
> a well known point of logic that assuming anything invalid to be true
> necessarily implies results that are in conflict with one another.
> However, the major reason why I disassociated myself from any
> political party was because I became convinced that voting is a
> fundamentally wrong method for a group of people to make any decision
> affecting them all, mainly because of its implied notion of majority
> rule. And rule necessarily implies that some individuals force others
> to act as they decide and contrary to the wishes of those others. In
> addition any centralized democratically organized arrangement attracts
> those who want to wield power, if only over a few others (those within
> the organization), but often do very little work of any use to anyone.
>
> The big mistake of all political parties and of the social philosophy
> behind them is to be convinced that for there to be societal order it
> is necessary to have institutions making rules, and rulers enforcing
> those rules uniformly on all.

I also do not associate myself with any political party, and for all the same
reasons. Except, I do continue to vote. In the reality of today's world, I
believe it is important to "legitimize" your voice by voting, even if you're in
the minority. It forces those who would wield power over "the minority" to at
least acknowledge their existence. It certainly doesn't stop them from stealing
more and more of my liberties, but I think it may at least slow them down.

On the other hand, by voting you also legitimize the majority rule/minority
slavery system.

> Even though it is the norm of systems in
> reality, the notion that a society of human beings can be totally
> self-ordered appears to be impossible for most people to conceive of -
> ie to initially think of at all.

I don't have a problem with the concept, only with the practicality of its
implementation.

> > That said, I do agree with the core libertarian principle that,
> > "...all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over
> > their own lives, [bodies, and property] and have the right to live
> > in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly
> > interfere with the equal right of others..."
>
> [Before Paul responds in detail, I am inserting the response that I
> created separately while we were (unplanned) offline before reading
> his at all. I knew that he would reply in detail, but I wanted to
> express the thoughts that initially came to my mind when I read this
> excerpt from the Libertarian Party platform.
>
> This excerpt, like libertarianism as a philosophy, is incomplete and
> ambiguous. While the word "right(s)" is used as though everyone
> supposedly understands what is meant by that word, it is a "concept"
> itself without clarity, and therefore fraught with problems with its
> use.

Most people understand the word "right" to mean "having JUST control or choice
over." In the context of libertarian principles, the word "right" implies that
it is a "just right," since an "unjust right" is an oxymoron. I think most would
define a "just right" as, that which one has come to possess because of morally,
ethically, or philosophically justifiable reasons. What justifiable reasons?
Philosophically, rights are an extension of the self. They stem from the concept
of rational egoism. The freedom to freely control all aspects of the self for
the benefit of the self. "...endowed by our creator..." is the unfortunate way
that Jefferson put it. It's obvious that what he meant was that we are born
owning ourself, and therefore we are born having dominion over ourself. Rand
would say that "man, by his nature, is an independent being."

> The word "force" (or its derivative "forcibly") is ambiguous in
> that it is not clear whether this is strictly physical and if so,
> whether physical force is never to be applied. And what is meant by
> "interfere"?

By "force," it is understood that we are talking about coercive force, or that
which is against the will of the victim. This includes things like fraud, which
is a form of deceptive coercion.

> Beyond this there is the concept of "property" - how is
> it defined? These are just some of the weaknesses in this small
> excerpt, but they are indicative of many major statements supposedly
> defining libertarianism (including big "L", the political party.) **Kitty]

Property: Anything that is part of the self or produced by the self, including
both tangible and intangible extensions and creations.

> I will start off by analyzing your quote above, that you say you
> "agree with", to show you that and how it is ill defined, ambiguous,
> totally hazy and yet still inconsistent with many actions that any
> reasonable person, libertarian or not, would accept as being rational
> and the correct thing to do.
>
> First, I will analyze the possible meanings of the words/phrases in
> your quote above:
> "all individuals" - although "individual" has other meanings I will
> assume from the context that a human being separate in mind and body
> from any other human is what is meant by this phrase.

yes.

> If that is the
> case it would be better phrased as "all human beings". However, human
> beings (human individuals) come in many varieties. First, there are
> the various stages of development and maturity. Second there are all
> manner of individual levels and types of intelligence, capabilities
> and characteristics. This enormous variety implies right off that any
> specific characteristic that all of them have is going to be something
> fundamentally biological such as the ability to interbreed, which is
> normally the defining aspect of a given species and often all that its
> members have totally in common.
>
> "have the right" - used in this manner, as something that one "has",
> the word "right" appears to be a common characteristic or possession
> of "all individuals", (better phrased as "each human being" and then
> singularized thereafter).

Correct so far.

> But then I must ask exactly where is this
> characteristic or possession in relationship to the body/mind of a
> human being. Any putative attribute of a human or existing possession
> of a human being must be capable of being ascertained (effectively
> measured) by some form of sensory input. Therefore if a right is an
> existing attribute, characteristic or possession of a human being then
> it must be capable of being sensed/measured for that human being and
> if it is a common attribute or possession, then for all human beings.
> Therefore anyone proposing that human beings have something called a
> "right" must either describe how I might sense it, if it is a physical
> characteristic or possession (such as fingers, running speed, the
> approximate age of puberty, etc) or describe just how I might
> indirectly ascertain it as a mental characteristic (such as
> consciousness, intelligence, honesty, etc). I have looked and looked
> for any human characteristic or possession to which many people refer
> by the term "right" and I have never yet found any such. Because such
> a characteristic or possession as a "right" also appears to be
> self-inconsistent with respect to any description of it that I have
> ever read, I have therefore decided that any such notion as a "right"
> is mythical or illusory, and therefore, will be the source of great
> confusion and harm in human thought. See my treatise "Social
> Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction at:
> http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html

See my discussion of rights above. A right, as I define it above, is an
intangible, just as happiness is an intangible. It none the less exists. It's
existence can be deduced based on rationality. My argument is this: A human is a
human. It is part of the nature of humans to be independent. Independence means
that each individual human acts in a way that s/he believe will result in
greater "happiness." (however an individual defines happiness) A right then is
the expression of an individual human doing what is in the nature of humans to
do. And therefore, to deny this "right" is to deny the human-ness of an
individual.

> "to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, [bodies, and property]"
> - This appears to be an attempted description of, not what a "right"
> is in general, but of one kind of right (which of course is contrary
> to the logic of definitions, which requires that the general category
> be first understood before any element can be differentiated from
> other members of that category).

This phrase is meant to emphasize and clarify the point that no individual may
coercively control another.

> The phrase appears to maintain that
> certain actions (a human being doing whatever s/he wishes to hir body
> or property) is somehow forbidden to other human beings (the meaning
> of "sole dominion") for that particular human and hir property.

Again, for emphasis and clarity.

> However all such forbidding requires either the capability of person A
> (the one who has "sole dominion over [hir own life]") to prevent any
> such actions by others (or the hiring of an agent to do such
> prevention) or the existence of an agreement between person A and all
> other human beings to not take or prevent from being taken any of
> those actions that are the "sole dominion" of person A, neither of
> which possibilities appear to me to be any kind of intrinsic
> characteristic or possession of person A.

Yes, it is intrinsic, by way of the "nature of man" argument.

> Certainly many human beings
> would not have the capability to prevent such usurping actions of
> others (or to hire an agent to do so) that are purported to be hir
> "sole dominion", which leaves the only recourse for attaining such
> "sole dominion" to be an explicit voluntarily agreed contract with
> each other human being with whom one is concerned about hir potential
> usurping of these actions of "sole dominion".

This is where libertarians see a legitimate role for government -- protecting
individual rights from those who would infringe upon them.

> Another possible interpretation is that all human beings can or
> *ought* to be able to "exercise sole dominion over their own lives,
> [bodies, and property]". However, once again any such "can or ought to
> be able to" depends on the actions of others and will, in general,
> only be possible if those others agree. But why should they? - as I
> will show below, there are many important situations where any
> reasonable person will act against such "sole dominion".

Rational egoism will prevent rational people from initiating coercive force
against others. The irrational people however, must be met with preventive and
punitive force.


> "lives, [bodies, and property]" - Since a human being's body
> (including hir brain/mind) and property are the only existents over
> which s/he could compossibly (consistently by all human beings at the
> same time) have "sole dominion", I will take it that those two
> comprise the full meaning of "lives" (or for one human being hir
> "life"). However, without a clear definition of "property" and a fully
> reasoned argument about why such defined "property" is effectively an
> extension of the "body" of a human being and therefore an essential
> part of hir "life", it is entirely reasonable that some human beings
> will not accept "property" as being in that category.

The broader definition of property is the libertarian one. Everything tangible
or intangible that is part of, an extension of, a just possession of, or a
creation of an individual is "Property." Some individuals will indeed not accept
this definition of property. They are not "reasonable." And, they are not
libertarians, by my definition.

> "and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose," - The
> part of this after "right" (about which my previous comments again
> apply) seems to be redundant since "to live in whatever manner they
> choose" seems to have no essential difference from "exercising sole
> dominion over their lives".

Yes, redundant, on purpose.

> "so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of
> others..." - Here is the most contentious, ill-defined and
> inconsistent part of the above quote.
> First no definition is given for "forcibly", which unfortunately has
> many variations of meaning for many people. Are we talking about
> physical force (the definition of "force" used in physics and the only
> type of force that a human being is physiologically incapable of
> totally ignoring), about psychological force (the force of persuasion
> resulting in alternate choices that frequently happens when some
> person reads, hears or sees the actions of one or more other persons)
> or about economic force (the effect on the choices of one person by
> the actions of another relating to the exchange of goods and/or
> services between them)?

I gave a definition of "force" above that most libertarian will agree with. It's
pretty clear what is and is not force. However, here is the second area were
libertarian see a legitimate role of government -- to peaceably resolve
disputes. Because, to envision a society without disputes between rational
individuals is a fantasy. (And by the way, it would NOT be a place I would want
to live.)

> Second, the word "interfere" is extremely nebulous, particularly when
> juxtaposed with "forcibly". Is asking directions from a stranger on
> the street a forcible interference with hir? After all it does use
> force (the voice is a phenomena of physical force) and it does
> interfere with the person being accosted, since hir consciousness is
> diverted to needing to make a choice that was not there before the
> voice (and perhaps gestures) interrupted hir thought processes.

The word "interfere" is deliberately nebulous because it is meant to include
virtually any coercive behavior.

> Third, as I stated before there are many situations where "physically
> forcible interference" is clearly the correct action, where correct is
> defined as increasing one's lifetime happiness. The simplest such
> example is the forcible restraint of children by their responsible
> parents at certain times during the training period of the children.
> Yes, for a parent to be doing the best possible job of nourishing and
> training hir child such use of force should be kept as minimal as
> possible, but most certainly parents have both the responsibility and
> the privilege to use such force as necessary.

Good point about children. They are in a somewhat special class. The libertarian
perspective is this: Parents have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their
children, ie to protect children's potential life long happiness. To the extent
that parents' use force for this purpose, it is justified, in fact mandatory. To
the extent that the use of force by a parent over their children diminishes
their potential life long happiness, it is not justified, and actionable.

> However, even for adults
> the use of physical force against the body or property of another
> adult is sometimes best (again with "best" ultimately meaning "will
> optimally increase the lifetime happiness of the actor).
> Case 1. Person A is in a burning building unconscious and person B
> forcibly picks hir up and takes hir outside away from the fire and
> smoke (possibly even somewhat harming that person being saved).
> Case 2. The automobile of person A is beginning to roll out into a
> busy street where it will clearly harm others and will likely itself
> be harmed. Person B seeing this, uses force on the property of person
> A (perhaps even damaging it somewhat) to stop the car rolling onto the
> street.

These two cases are easy. A rational egoist will understand the benefit of
living in a society where looking out for the welfare of others is accepted and
encouraged. A rational egoist, being confronted with the above two situations
would act according to his own rational self interest by attempting to prevent
or lessen harm to others. He may do it just because it makes him feel good,
which is of course also in his own interest.

But what if turn out that the people he saved from harm did not what him to
"interfere?" Our good Samaritan would be liable for the balance of damages done
vs. damages prevented by his actions. But otherwise his actions would be
considered by most libertarian as reasonable justified.

> Case 3. Person A is lost in a wilderness and has run out of food and
> water. S/he is convinced that without any change in hir circumstances
> death is certain. Then s/he finds a cache (in the desert or simply a
> cabin in the woods) with sufficient provisions to renew hirself and be
> able to carry on to find hir way back to civilization and eventually
> to hir good life. Clearly the correct thing to do is to break into the
> cache and use the food and water there, rather than to simply say
> "since doing so is against libertarian principle, I must leave the
> cache alone and proceed on to what I am convinced is certain death".
>
> In each case above the actions involving the *initiation of physical
> force* could result in possibly grave damage to the other person or
> hir property (in the last case it could be much more than merely
> property, since the owner of the cache may be on hir way to use the
> cache and might even die as a result of its not being there). Still,
> the correct action in all of these cases (and many, many more like
> them) is not to obey the libertarian principle, but rather to take the
> life/harm saving action, to be responsible for any harm done by one's
> actions and to, as quickly as possible, reverse (restitute) any harm
> that is done by one's actions.

I will answer this by telling you what I think I would do as a libertarian and a
rational egoist faced with this situation. First of all, yes, I would break and
enter to save my life on the assumption that any harm that I might cause can be
reimbursed, and on the assumption that the owner is a rational egoist, like
myself, and would surely approve of my actions considering the situation. But
what if I have knowledge that my actions will cause irreversible damage, or
death to another? I'd like to think that I would sacrifice myself rather than
"murder" another individual. But who knows what they might actually do when
faced with a life and death decision.
I don't think my actions would disqualify me as a libertarian. What would you
do, and how would your actions fit in with your meta-needs philosophy?

> There are very obviously a myriad of other examples of the above kind,
> but I can also reverse the situation and produce a vast number of
> practical examples of actions that clearly cause harm, yet do not
> involve any direct physical force by the actor on the person or
> property harmed, but for which it is totally reasonable to hold the
> person who is the effective cause of the harm to be responsible for
> restitution of it. I invite readers to supply examples of this latter
> type.
>
> In conclusion, the core libertarian principle quoted above is simply
> not fully enough defined and does not have an ethical basis that will
> specify the correct actions for a vast number of human interactive
> situations.
>
> --Paul


Libertarian principles, as summarized in this statement of principle, have been
fully defined by others much more capable than I. Your library is probably
bigger than mine. But it is my belief that the ethical basis for libertarian
principles can be found by using objectivist reasoning as an outgrowth of the
nature of humans and of rational egoism. In fact, I find it hard to understand
how anyone can call himself a libertarian without also subscribing to
objectivist philosophy.
--roy