Meta
This is my response to the second portion of Roy's original message.
/Meta

On 04/29/2009 04:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:

Meta
snipped portions already responded to and all previous Meta text.
/Meta

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...> wrote:
>
Meta
snipped agreement portion.
/Meta

>> << Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
>> concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
>> society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
>> concepts, <<
>>
>> While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are

>> ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
>> are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
>> ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
>> inadequate for guiding social interactions.
>
> Ill-defined, ambiguous? Seems clear to me.?
> Incomplete? Only in the details of its practical application.

All libertarian text, that I know of, is ill-defined and ambiguous in
terms of the precise and clear meanings of the terms used (exactly to
what they apply and to what they do not apply).
No more examples, than those provided in Part 1 of this response, are
needed unless additional libertarian text is supplied.

> The core libertarian principle (see above) establishes a basis in
> human nature by recognizing the sovereign nature of human
> individuals,

What precisely does "sovereign" as a subcategory of "nature" mean?
Where do I find it and how do I detect it? How do I differentiate it
from other characteristics of human beings which one would call their
"nature"? Specifically given any other set of characteristics that are
of such nature, how do I determine whether "sovereign" is in that set or
not? For example, blond hair is not part of the nature of human beings,
but hair is. Smiling and crying seem to be part of the nature of human
beings, but after some recent analysis of a remote amazon tribe there is
some debate whether or not a sense of number is in the nature of all
humans.

> and guides social interactions by defining "forcible interference"
> as the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.

1) Precisely which actions are "forcible" and which are not? I don't
want a list (which would be endless). I want clearly defining
characteristics.
2) Same question for "interference"? Would not, even mutually voluntary
sexual relations be an example of "forcible interference"? Are
libertarians against sex? :-)
3) Acceptable or unacceptable by whom? And what is the action to be
taken by whom if some action (by someone else?) is found to be
acceptable or found to be unacceptable?

>> My practical suggestions -
>> the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
>> at all.
>
> Your 6 items may not have come from libertarian concepts, but they
> sound very libertarian to me. They are a solid set of guidelines on
> how a truly sovereign (may I say libertarian) individual should
> avoid governmental interference and reject governmental assistance.

[For reference I am restating the 6 items from the article:
1. Do not make use of "government services" that can be obtained
privately;
2. Initiate/support cooperative efforts that replace "government
services";
3. Do not work for or do business with governments of any form in any
capacity;
4. Preferentially associate with those who do *not* work for
governments - positive social preferencing;
5. Do *not* voluntarily associate with those who continue to work for
government despite being encouraged not to do so - negative social
preferencing;

Last but not least and actually primary to the preceding,
6. Practice self-responsibility and encourage the same by all others,
especially children and young people.

These 6 likely have a libertarian "ring" to them because, as Paul stated
previously, the theory of social meta-needs can be viewed as a synthesis
of which classical liberalism (the forerunner of libertarianism) is a
part. But the differences with libertarianism are significant as Paul
has and will continue to point out.

While a person who actually follows those 6 items will be rejecting
much of government - especially the enforcers by way of voluntary
disassociation - unless s/he understands and accepts the reasons
underlying them (for why government is not only undesirable but
actually unnecessary and why all forms of non-coercive rational social
preferencing are both valid and beneficial actions), s/he will likely
be hampered in attempts to persuade others, except merely by example
of actions and results. Only when such a person understands and
accepts the underlying principles - which may come about after simply
practicing those items for some time, as would a insightful novice at
any complex endeavor (an example of the inductive method by which most
knowledge is gained) - will sh/e really be self-sovereign in thought
even while government lingers on. **Kitty]

Paul again:
In my experience with libertarians (not much in recent years), I have
not seen any promote or practice either 3, 4 or 5 above and 6 is not
particularly libertarian being also promoted by some other social
groups that are far from libertarian - eg humanists.

>> The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
>> directly opposed to any practical application of social
>> preferencing.
>>
> Social preferencing plays a very important role in libertarian
> thinking.

Kitty did not imply that social preferencing (not by that term, but
rather called "the right of association") is not a major part of
libertarian principle and action. What she stated, and you have not
addressed, is that "the idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians",
which includes anonymity, multiple unlinked pseudonyms and even, for
many, a positive right to personal privacy, is inconsistent with any
effective social preferencing between individuals in society. This is
because, to be effective, social preferencing requires the ability to
find out and monitor all possible information about the person who you
are evaluating for the purpose of association (friendship or value
exchange of some kind) and more generally, whose actions you are
evaluating with respect to whether or not they operate towards an
optimal increase in your lifetime happiness or not. Such effective
monitoring/evaluation of another individual cannot take place if s/he
is a "ghost" about whom only a little information is available or has
the information by which s/he could be reasonably evaluated
distributed between several unlinked pseudonyms.

> It is the essence of how individuals are able to exercise free
> choice without using force against others.

At this point, because all these libertarian terms are ill-defined and
ambiguous, I have no choice but to resort to the use of the clearly
defined fundamental terms of the SMN theory (capitalized words below),
which are defined within the formal part of its implementation by the
Natural Social Contract (NSC) - which is the effective replacement,
within the future possible self-ordered society of full liberty that I
am founding and describing, for the entire legal system within any
current society (which is why the NSC is *not* a simple read). Please
consult http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html for all definitions
(BTW, you will not find a definition of "force" in that document,
because in social terms it is a derivative word, fraught with
problems).

1) Social Preferencing is not the "essence" of anything. It is a
practical method by which one individual communicates hir Evaluation
of another individual to that other individual and, ideally, to all
other individuals with whom that other one is Connected.

2) Choice and force are totally unrelated things. Choice is something
that takes place in the brain/mind. It is the Action taken as a result
of the Choice which may or may not use force in some manner. But
again, it is first necessary to make a clear definition of just what
constitutes "force". ("Action" and "Choice" are pretty clear.)
Furthermore as I showed in the first part, not all initiation of
force, even pure physical force, by one human being on another is bad
and should be forbidden as it is by the most fundamental principle
that libertarians hold (which most maintain is the essential defining
principle of being a libertarian) - The Non-Aggression Principle
(NAP), which states: "a human individual may do anything that s/he
wants provided only that s/he does not initiate or threaten violence
against the person or properly owned property of another". Once again
the problems here arise from the fact that the meanings of 'Initiate",
"threaten", "violence" and "properly owned property" are all highly
ambiguous in the English language and which exact meaning is to be
used here is not specified. In addition, as my previous examples
showed (and uncountably many other examples are possible) even with
totally reasonable meanings for those terms, there are many Actions
contrary to the NAP that any libertarian would agree are correct ones.
Therefore, the "principle" is not a complete and sufficient basis to
decided whether any human Action will or will not optimally increase
the Lifetime Happiness of the Actor, and because of that, the NAP is
not correctly described as a principle at all.

[The NAP formulation that Paul used above is a slightly modified one
of Walter Block's in his article, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of
Libertarianism" - http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
An even worse version is that of L. Neil Smith: "No one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, nor to delegate its initiation." The article at Wikipedia
includes both these versions and includes the following sentence
following Smith's: "This is considered an imprecise formulation, since
it explicitly ignores context." In actuality all of the versions,
including Ayn Rand's that is mentioned first are "imprecise" and
"ignore context".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Formulations **Kitty]

>> Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
>> which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
>> consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
>> self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
>> ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
>> and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
>> interacts).
>
> As a libertarian, I defend anonymity as a choice.

Roy, you (and many others) are confusing the two completely different
aspects of a human Action:
1) whether or not a given human Action should be *Permitted* by all
other humans, with "Permitted" meaning that the Action is neither
prevented, circumvented, punished, has required Restitution or in any
manner is opposed by an Action of Responsible Harm to the Actor, and
2) whether or not a human Action should be evaluated by each human
with respect to its effects on hir ability to optimally increase hir
Lifetime Happiness (for all humans at the same time), and to act in
ways that do *not* involve any Action of Responsible Harm to the
Actor, but are intended to effect a change in the Actor such that in
future hir related Actions *do* promote the ability of each human to
optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same time.

Note the essential difference between those two human reactions to
another human action described immediately above. The first involves
an Act of Responsible Harm (initiation of physical force is one simple
example of an Action that generally causes Responsible Harm), but the
second does not.

Attempting to Act in an anonymous manner is clearly an Action of the
second kind, and any Action that does not involve Responsible Harm
must be an allowable Action in response, or else one does not have
full Liberty. So under the NSC any human may attempt to be anonymous,
if s/he wishes, without Breaching the NSC, but any other human may
also decide to not associate or in any manner interact with anyone
attempting to be anonymous and to persuade others to do likewise (all
of which are forms of Social Preferencing), also without Breaching the
NSC. Since SMN theory implies that attempting to be anonymous has
negative effects on the ability of all humans (including the Actor) to
optimally increase their Lifetime Happinesses, I choose to Social
Preference against anyone who acts in that manner. Note carefully that
Social Preferencing includes any Action that does not Effect
Responsible Harm to another human.

> I believe information is owned by the individual who created it. If
> personal information is an individual's property, then unauthorized
> use of that information must, by definition, be considered theft.

No. Information has fundamentally different Attributes (for one, the
ability to make exact copies) than either Material Existents or Real
Estate. In terms of the NSC metaphysics, Information is a Level-1 or
greater Existent, or in vernacular terms one may describe Information
as pure "structure". For that reason, the way humans should best
interact relative to Information will not be and cannot be the same as
the best ways to interact with respect to Material Existents and Real
Estate (which are each also different from the other). Note that
"should best interact" is defined as all Actions that will enable each
person to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same
time.

> However, no rational libertarian will recommend a lifestyle of
> absolute anonymity, precisely because it will likely carry with it
> the cost of negative social preferencing. i.e. - not releasing
> credit history information will most likely result in distrust by
> lenders.

Yes, anyone with *incorrect* notions will always find that the
exigencies of practical reality will cause them to make exceptions to
such notions. In fact, as a general rule of logic, if exceptions to a
principle or axiom need to be made that is an indication that the
principle or axiom is fundamentally invalid, usually because it is not
dealing with the root and basis in reality of what is really needed to
make such decisions. Such a complete and consistent root and basis for
making all ethical decisions is precisely what SMN theory supplies
(which is why I think of it as an extension and correction of
Objectivism making it consistent and complete), and which no
libertarian principles do.

However, there is another problem with your statement above of which
you are likely not aware. The word "rational" applied to Choices and
Actions is a very slippery and tricky word to nail down. I had great
difficultly myself arriving at any consistent definition for Rational,
which I found that I could not do without (even though Mises in his
seminal work "Human Action" totally eschews the "rational" notion). I
have never seen any adequate definition of "rational" from either a
libertarian or even an Objectivist (for the latter of whom it is very
fundamental - being called "irrational" is the worst possible insult
that an Objectivist can make).

> But, if you want to be a social outcast or hermit, it's your choice.

Yes, but no one can both take an Action and also not get the
consequences. That is contrary to reality. The consequences of one's
Actions bear the same relationship to the Actions as does a physical
reaction to an action - recall Newton's third law of motion law: "To
each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In the
case of anonymity the consequences are both strong Social Preferencing
against the person who attempts to be anonymous, and the loss of many
contact and connection opportunities from which s/he might otherwise
benefit.

> Fraud is another matter. I consider fraud to be a use of force.

Roy, excuse me for having to say this and not meaning to insult you,
but you are merely spouting the standard libertarian mantra. Please
tell me precisely **where** during a fraudulent exchange is any
physical force initiated?

The standard libertarian (and Objectivist) answer (which I used to
swallow too, because I had no better answer) is that fraud is force
because if the defrauded person had known the truth, then s/he would
have needed to be forced to make the exchanged on the same terms. But
that answer is logically a false description of what actually occurs,
and thus skirts and prevents the discovery of a more fundamental
reason for why fraud must generally be held to be a Violation in order
for there to be optimal social order.

I have not capitalized the word "fraud" because it is not even defined
in the NSC. The reason for this is because fraud is but one important
example covered by the more general concept of Responsibility under a
Valid Contract, which, in order to be valid, must have both
Termination Clauses and Breach Penalty Clauses. Under the NSC, a
Breach of a Valid Contract is grounds for a Charge of Breach of the
NSC itself and consequent Revocation of all NSC Privileges if found
Guilty.

> Misrepresenting or withholding relevant information, so as to
> influence another's choice must be considered a restitutionable
> offense.

Even if that were true, it does not equate such action to the
initiation of physical force. But once again it is not always true
that such a fraud is either a Violation (the NSC more general term
replacing "offense") or requires restitution. In fact, Responsible
Harm to a person is the more fundamental determiner of whether or not
s/he should be Restituted.

Here is an example:
I will use the example where I roll back the odometer of my car,
before selling it to you, because I want to get you to pay me more
money than any reasonable person would consider the car to be worth
based on the actual number of miles it has been driven.
But I will not exhaustively consider all the different situations
related to the NSC that might relate to this (whether under a Valid
Contract or not, whether the Contract contains the odometer reading or
not, all the harms that could result, the possible Breach of the NSC
involved, etc). Rather I want to simply address one completely possible
situation:

I am as certain as I can be that the car is in such excellent shape
that it will run and last as if the odometer reading to which I set it
were true, and furthermore the car actually lasts even longer and with
less cost than most cars that have the odometer readings at which it
was sold.

My question in this case is then why should such an action even if
found out years later be deemed to be an offense? And what could
possibly be the Restitution for such offense since the Lifetime
Happiness of the purchaser is at least as high as it would have been
if I had not taken that action.

Now you may say: but the purchaser *has* had hir Lifetime Happiness
reduced because s/he paid more money for the car than s/he would have
if s/he had known the true odometer reading. However, this assumes
that I would have been willing to sell the car at that lower price
knowing full well that it was worth more, so the logic is invalid.

In fact, this is one of those situations that can only reasonably be
solved by assuming the full principle of value for value is understood
and used by both parties. In that case, I would have not turned the
odometer back. Rather I would have left it as is and done my utmost
to persuade the buyer of its stellar condition even at that advanced
mileage. Then the buyer could decide for hirself whether s/he wanted
to pay me for the worth of the car now or later once s/he had fully
determined it (plus interest, of course).

It is also interesting that you said "withholding relevant
information" because in my experience most libertarians do not agree
with you here. Most of them invoke the "buyer beware principle" (the
onus to find out information is on the buyer not the seller) to
maintain that so long as you do not say or clearly imply anything
false during a transaction you are within your "rights". I, of course,
strongly disagree with that as I have done for over 30 years.

Nevertheless your statement is fraught with problems unless you can
come up with a clear definition of "relevant information" - relevant
to whom, when and in what way? In fact, I defy you to give any general
and complete definition. I certainly can't (but don't need to,
because the SMN and NSC handle this sort of potential harm entirely
differently).

> Please understand that I am not defending libertarian concepts or
> libertarians, as such. I am simply using what is familiar to me as a
> basis for exploring your ideas. I think our difference are probably
> more semantic than substantive.

Our differences are most certainly semantic, but only because of the
multiple meanings that the words you use have in the vernacular
language (my uneducated guess is that English is probably the worst in
this respect).

But more importantly than that, we have major differences because you
are not basing your ethical statements on fundamental enough concepts
to enable them to be consistent and complete (to not allow contrary
actions that both fit your statement, and for any action, to enable a
decision of whether it is right or wrong).

>> << but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
>> implementation. <<
>>
>> Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
>> simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
>> any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
>> must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
>> epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.
>>
> Yes! It is extremely important to recognize the difference between
> what is theoretically possible, and what is practically possible in
> the real world. I believe the inability of many, if not most, to
> understand this difference, is the primary source of both historical
> and current social tribulations. Any social system that ignores, or
> seeks to somehow change, the reality of human nature is doomed to
> failure.

You have said it very well. My only criticism is with your phrase
"theoretically possible". I maintain that if some principle or theory
cannot be brought to practical operation, then it is not actually even
*theoretically* possible. It is simply invalid and meaningless.

Philosophy instructors delight in raising all sorts of theoretical
examples such as unicorns, truth machines, people who cannot lie,
people who always lie, etc. I reject all of these as useful for any
purpose whatsoever. In addition, while I again totally agree with you
about the futility of trying to change the reality of human nature,
one has to very carefully examine human nature to ascertain just what
is its *true* reality, before one decides whether or not something is
contrary to that nature. I would maintain that the major problem with
the world today is that the vast majority of people are acting
contrary to their true nature, mainly because they have not yet
discovered the fundamental aspects of that nature.

Kitty thought that the following quote from a story on MSNBC that she
just saw today fitted right in here (and I agree):

"Can Star Trek's non-violent utopia happen?" -
Tricorders and transporters are cool, but the most radical invention
on "Star Trek" may have been its vision of a peaceful humanity.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30626488/from/ET/

"I do think humans might someday reach more peaceful coexistence if we
don't destroy the planet first, though I doubt it will be utopia,"
said Dennis Fox, emeritus professor of legal studies and psychology at
the University of Illinois at Springfield. "If utopia does come, it
won't be because human nature changes
<http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080502-strange-humans.html>,
or because some governmental authority or alien race forces it upon
us, but because we manage to create new social structures more
conducive to satisfying human needs and values."

Naturally both I and Kitty strongly think that SMN theory and its
twin implementations via the NSC and Social Preferencing *are* that
"new social structure[] more conducive to satisfying human needs and
values". Unfortunately neither Fox nor anyone else of academic, or
media stature, yet knows that it exists.

>> << However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
>> envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
>> many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
>> government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
>> for you too. <<
>>
>> I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
>> of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
>> to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
>> begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
>> lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
>> apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
>> works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
>> continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
>> oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
>> up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
>> greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
>> evolving self-ordered society.
> And here is where I see the practical getting in the way of the
> possible.

We are not saying that it will be easy. If it were that easy it would
have occurred already. All we are saying is that it is possible and
that it must be tried (all other ways have failed).

>> << Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
>> exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
>> propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
>> the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
>> People Problem." <<
>>
>> No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
>> society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
>> but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
>> you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
>> eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
>> and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
>> either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
>> "school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
>> only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
>> practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
>> irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
>> hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
>> continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
>> "practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
>> result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
>> supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
>> everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
>> Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
>> governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
>> self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
>> vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
>> to those same people.
> I wish we lived in a world where we could simply ignore the
> "stupid."

Then first, start looking after your health by all possible methods so
that you can have a very long life, and second, get involved with the
SelfSIP project.

> Maybe someday there will be too few of them to exert control over
> our lives, through their support of governments that are NOT
> inclined to let anyone just opt out of their web of control without
> a fight.

The key is to be subtle, slow, non-violent, mostly unseen, highly
dispersed and to keep totally clear of hot issues (such as weapons,
drugs, money laundering, overt tax evasion methods, replacement
currencies, etc).

>> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
>> precise and scholary (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
>> I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
>> intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
>> of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
>> few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
>> and/or desire to understand. <<
>>
>> It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
>> readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
>> very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
>> libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
>> definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
>> did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
>> during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
>> highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
>> taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
>> super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
>> course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
>> years in the late 70s and early 80s.
>>
>> It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
>> individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
>> ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
>> of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
>> question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
>> implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
>> have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
>> :-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
>> then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
>> interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
>> social actions.
>>
>
> I read some of your other foundational materials and reread the
> Meta-Needs treatise again. I now have even more questions, concerns,
> and critiques than I did before. But, I will save them for another
> thread.

Good, but I have already noted that your next message (in response to
the first part of my reply to this message - which I realize now it
was a mistake to post before this was ready), did not address any
direct text or ideas within SMN, NSC or anything else on SelfSIP.org

>> << (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
>> with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
>> beyond the scope of this article.) <<
>>
>> Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
>> all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
>> rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
>> reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
>> picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.
>>
>> We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
>> too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
>> theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
>> fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
>> between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
>> Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
>> changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
>> although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
>> conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
>> understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
>> idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
>> only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
>> methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
>> will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
>> exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
>> discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
>>
>> << I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
>> that there's more of them than there are of you. <<
>>
>> The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
>> These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
>> - granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
>> negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
>> ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
>> individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
>> novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
>> mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
>> and voluntarily deal only with the latter.
>>
>> Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
>> all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
>> system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
>> self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
>> doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
>> consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
>> current government interference between parties - have a contractual
>> relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
>> is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
>> those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
>> (I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
>> other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
>> when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
>> "box".
>
> All sounds good, but a whole lot easier said than done. Though, I'm
> not saying that it isn't worth the effort.

But you need to thoroughly understand the SMN and the NSC to fully
understand that it can be done and how it actually is all done, there
and with the addition of strong Social Preferencing.

Meta
snipped the rest which was uncommented.
/Meta

--Paul