META
I never received the customary email from Yahoo that this message was
in the queue. Additionally we departed early yesterday (5/14), in rain
and squalls on an errand trip and when we returned in the latter
afternoon found that the power was out. It was only restored this
morning about 10:30am. Finding this message happened only when Paul
this afternoon brought up his Yahoo "My Groups" and therefore the
lengthy delay in its release from the queue. **Kitty
/META

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

Paul & Kitty,
Some of your new comments I believe I have responded to already. I
will indicate which ones they are rather than repeating myself. But
you made some new and interesting points here that I will attempt to
respond to the best I can. Please keep in mind, I am not engaging in
this discussion in order to win debating points. I am truly in search
of new knowledge and understanding. Likewise, I hope that my
questions, comments, objections and disagreements will foment new
ideas for you, or at least serve to sharpen your existing beliefs and
arguments.

> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@> wrote:
> >
> >> << 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.

Previously addressed.

> > 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.

I assumed this was self-evident. Apparently not. I couldn't find your
definition of Self-Sovereign, but I think I can use your definition of
SELF-MASTERY ie:

Self-Mastery describes the fact of Reality that every Existent has
more direct Attributes of Possession and Control over itself, and more
direct access to Information Represented within itself, than does any
other Existent and that this "more" includes Attributes of Existents,
Information and Processes the Possession, Control or access of which
is physically impossible for any other Existent. In this regard a
Freeman can be thought of as a Self-Master.

On the topic of "Nature of Humans": I think I can comfortably define
this term (in the context of libertarian principles) to mean --
adhering to, or being consistent with "Social Meta-Needs" as I
currently understand your theory:

Social Meta-Needs - those properties of the Environment of
InterActions within Society common to all Members, which facilitate
the highest possible attainment of Lifetime Happiness by each.

> > 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?

Funny! I am at least one libertarian who believes consensual sex is
NOT "Forcible Interfernce." I suspect I could find a couple of others
who agree with me on this.
But here again, I think I can comfortably replace the term "Forcible
Interference" with word DURESS as you define it in the NSC, ie:

Duress is the State of one Freeman-A (the Duressee) with respect to
another Freeman-B (the Duressor) when:

1. Freeman-A perceives and Performs Defense against a Defendable
Threat to him by Freeman-B, or Freeman-B's Agent, and Freeman-B is not
currently a Duressee with respect to Freeman-A;
2. Freeman-A formally Charges that Freeman-B or Freeman-B's agent
has Violated Freeman-A; or
3. Freeman-A has received a Restitution Agreement or Restitution
Requirement from Freeman-B which is not yet Complete.

The only stipulations I will make are these: 1. I include non-physical
forms of DURESS. And, 2. I do not accept subjective assessments of
happiness as part of what you call RESPONSIBLE HARM which results from
acts of duress. Oh ya, and 3. I might want to change the term
"Freeman" with "Self-Sovereign Individual" just to make it more
universal.

> >> 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.

Numbers 1 thru 5 are consistent with general libertarian
anti-government dependence principles, but a libertarian may or may
not engage in these tactics and remain true to his libertarian values.
However, #6 is pretty much a requirement, if you want to call yourself
a libertarian.

> 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]

Lofty and laudable goal. But attainable?... maybe. I'd like to believe
so, but my rational side still has some feasibility issues to resolve.

> 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.

Truth is truth.

> >> 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.

I respectfully disagree. Your MoreLife group policies demonstrate how
social preferencing works without forcing any individual to give up
their personal privacy. You simply choose NOT to associate with
individuals who do not supply sufficient personal information. It's
not about the personal information per se, but about the use of DURESS
to get it.

> > 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).

See above response.

> 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.

Sounds pretty "essential" to me.

> 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.

Okay...

> But
> again, it is first necessary to make a clear definition of just what
> constitutes "force".

See above.

("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.

One could attempt to define these words more clearly. Or, one could
simply invent new words. I can understand why you chose the later
approach. But from a practical point of view, I think it's
problematic.

> 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.

Except for definitionally contrived conflicts, I have not seen an
action that I would condone that is contrary to the principle of NAP.
Just because someone could conceivable come up with a conflict that is
based on an obscure and generally unaccepted definition, does not make
the principle any less valid. If this were true, virtually every
principle ever conceived could be called invalid simply because
someone questions what the meaning of "is" is.

> 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.

In my opinion, the NAP is consistent with your definition of a
"Violation," ie:
A Violation of Freeman-A by another Freeman-B is a Responsible Harm to
Freeman-A by Freeman-B or a Breach by Freeman-B of a Valid Contract to
which both are Parties.

> [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]

I'm not sure what you mean here by "context." See, now you've got me
doing it.

> >> 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.

No confusion on my part. I agree with everything you say here. (in
concept at least, if not with some specifics)

> > 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

Don't confuse "personal" information with "public" information. I
could provide a lengthy definition, but I think we can use the common
meanings here. I can define the exact dividing line later if needed,
but for now it is enough to say that they are objectively different in
my mind.

> (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.

Choosing to associate with someone who requires personal information
as a prerequisite for that association in one circumstance, while
choosing not to associate with another person who requires that same
information, does not negate the rationality of either choice. It
simply means that the value of the first association was deemed to be
more than the value of the information, while the value of the second
association was deemed to be insufficient for the price (ie-personal
information) that was required. The principles of free choice and of
social preferencing remain valid.

> 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.

We might discuss the inconsistencies and incompleteness of Objectivism
some time. I think this is at the root of where I am having a problem
accepting your SMN theory.

> 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).

The meaning of the word "rational" that I use, and that is consistent with
Objectivism is: "Any thought process that is objectively
logical." However, this does not imply that what is "rational" is
necessarily reality. Two people can objectively and logically arrive
at different "Rational" conclusions. But, this can logically only
happen when there is ambiguous or incomplete information. In other
words, two people can't have the same precise and complete information
and objectively and logically come to different conclusions.

> > 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.

Exactly my point. It's a choice.

> 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.

No offense taken...this time. You just don't know me very well. You
were simply unaware that I arrived at this conclusion independently
before I was ever exposed to libertarian ideas as such.

"Mantra" implies that I accepted it without question. I just mentioned
your comment to my wife. She got a chuckle out of it. She knows that I
don't accept the directions on a box of cake mix without a lot of
questioning, much less on matters of principle. She has chided me on
this aspect of my personality on many occasions.

I believe this particular concept first crystallized for me after
reading "Looking Out for Number One" by Robert Ringer, about 30 years
ago. Generally, most of my philosophical foundational beliefs were
arrived at independently, only to be reinforced later by others. I see
libertarians and objectivists as agreeing with ME rather than the
other way around.

Also, it is hard to completely agree with something, but find
completely different words to describe it. And even if this is is a
"mantra", that, in itself, is not an argument against its validity. So
then, why say it?

> Please
> tell me precisely **where** during a fraudulent exchange is any
> physical force initiated?

Force does not need to by physical. See above argument about DURESS.

> 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.

Okay, this logic works (sorta), but it's not the best argument I can
think of. As I said, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian.

> 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.

Perhaps imprecise, but I like the word "fraud" anyway because most
people I talk to agree with me on what it means.

> 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"

Ah yes, Caveat Emptor, "Let the buyer beware." I see that I should
have been more specific above. Yes, the buyer does have a
responsibility for due diligence. However, if the buyer in your above
example had asked the seller (rather than just look at the odometer)
"How many miles does this car have on it?" Thereby fulfilling his
responsibility for due diligence. And then, if the seller had
knowingly lied about the car's true mileage, this would constitute a
"fraud" by way of INITIATING a MODIFIED EVENT by using DURESS (part
2.) and thereby causing RESPONSIBLE HARM.

Also, a VIOLATION is a violation regardless of how it may impact
positively or negatively on the future. For example: Lets say Ann is
walking home from work one night. She follows her usual route at the
usual time. Suddenly, from out of a dark corner a mugger, Bob, attacks
her. He brutally beats her to the ground and steals her purse.
Clearly, Bob has VIOLATED Ann. After the attack, Ann pulls herself
together and, with some pain, slowly walks the remainder of the way
home. The mugging attack delayed her arrival home by no more than 2
minutes. Unbeknownst to Ann or Bob, a gas leak has developed in Ann's
home. Throughout the day gas has been building up. Just as Ann turns
to up the walkway to her doorway, she is met with a horrific explosion
as the gas finally reaches a pilot light. Ann is thrown to the ground
by the shock wave of the explosion, but is otherwise uninjured. Her
house and everything in it, including her cat, Snuggles, is totally
destroyed.
I think you can see the dilemma here. Ann would have surely died with
her cat in the explosion had she not been delayed by Bob's savage
attack and had returned home on time. Ann's LIFETIME HAPPINESS is
clearly much greater than it would have been had she died in the
explosion rather than being mugged by Bob. Should Ann be thanking Bob?
Maybe Ann should pay Bob for the increase in LIFETIME HAPPINESS (she
would have to agree) that he caused her, albeit unintentionally. My
point is, you can't rationally rely only on restitution as full
punishment for all crimes. And you can't use future unintentional and
unknowable consequences as a basis for calculating restitution. A
crime (or VIOLATION) is a crime regardless of unrelated future
consequences. Bob should go to jail... at least.

> (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.

Ethically, I agree with you. But the, "What did he know, and when did
he know it?" question makes it impossible to enforce legally.

> Nevertheless your statement is fraught with problems unless you can
> come up with a clear definition of "relevant information"

Relevant was a less than precise choice of words on my part. What I
should have said is, "Factual material information as requested by the
buyer"

> - 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).

I used to play the game of WHY when I was a child. My children and
grandchildren have played it as well. The object of the game is to
exhaust the questionee with continual questions of "Why?" to every
answer that is given. The first few "why" questions result in real and
useful knowledge and understanding being transferred. But at some
point, the questions become ridiculous and do not serve to advance the
knowledge of the questioner, but only to annoy the questionee.
In a way, this is how I feel about dissecting word meanings. It is
constructive and necessary to question the meaning of a key word,
perhaps even to question the meaning of the meaning. But I think it
starts to become counterproductive to question the meaning of the
meaning of the meaning of a word.

In responding today, I have tried to use the language and words of SMN
and NSC, but I have to tell you, I had a great deal of difficulty
following the multilevel labyrinth of meanings of meanings of
meanings. Is it just me?

> 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).

While you may see inconsistencies in my views, I do not. To me they
are internally consistent and based on fundamentally rational
concepts. So far the only inconsistencies you have shown me are in the
nuances of word definitions. However, I am holding out hope that I
will find something fundamentally flawed with my views. I love being
proven wrong. Being right may fluff the ego, but being wrong is the
source of new knowledge. Doesn't everyone feel that way? ;)

> >> << 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.

By "theoretically possible" I meant, if your theory is correct, it's
possible. If I had simply said "possible" it would imply that I
believe your theory to be correct.

> 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.

I do not have perfect knowledge of human nature, so I can't say with
absolute certainty what humans are capable of. However, I know what
I've seen. And I haven't seen anything to convince me that a society
of Self-Sovereign Individuals (as you describe it) is possible. I
would like to have a discussion to explore the true nature of humanity
at some point in the future.

> 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."

"Fascinating" as Spock would say. I find this word useful when you
don't really have an opinion worth expressing, but feel obligated to
say something. Maybe that's why Spock used it so often.

> 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).

If you eliminate all that is impossible, everything that remains,
regardless of how improbable, must be possible. Does this apply here?

> >> << 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.

Thanks. Perhaps.

> > 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).

This is another area where I would like to have an in-depth discussion
-- on the practical application of the above strategy. I can see a
couple of major obstacles to be overcome. Rationality without
practicality is irrational.

> >> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
> >> precise and scholarly (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 tried to correct that (somewhat) in this post.

> >> << (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.

Unfortunately right now, the more I understand about SMN and NSC, the
more questions I have.


--roy

[Roy, please recall Paul's introductory comments about his background,
the purpose of which was to show you that he had read *all* the
contemporary libertarian and Objectivist arguments by 25 years ago.
(This includes every word that Ayn Rand every published up until the
mid 1970s, after which she published nothing fundamental, but merely
commented on current events (mostly political). (I have read most of
Rand's published writings through to her death, even before meeting
Paul.)

Paul is getting very frustrated by the lack of anything new coming out
of this discussion and your apparent inability to see the importance
of the flaws that he is continually pointing out (some of which other
libertarian philosopher's before him have also written about but were
unable to find a solution - as an example, see
http://selfsip.org/dialogues/dfriedman/index.html ).

And I understand Paul's frustration since I note that you completed
this last response in less than 24 hours after Paul's message was
posted - a very brief period of awake time free from work-related
activities in order to fully digest the related material in the SMN
essay, the NSC, its annotations and other linked/supplementary
writings, work that took Paul literally years of thought and writing
to create in a logically sound fashion.

Both I and Paul never leave anyone's substantive message unaddressed,
so he will be making a reply to most of the above message after he
completes his point by point response of your previous message
(#2019). However, we will not then accept any response to these since
the logical level of your responses is of no value to us.

If you have interest in further dialog with either of us here, then
you will have to go back to the SMN treatise and tell us *where* you
think its definitions, premises or logic is flawed. It is *not* good
enough to merely tell us that you disagree with some conclusion. If
you cannot tell us *where* the premises or the logic in a conclusion
is flawed, then you cannot logically disagree with the conclusion. If
you do not understand these things, you do not adequately understand
the logic of formulating definitions and the logic of deductive
reasoning (and, unfortunately, both were weaknesses of Ayn Rand and
are still of most libertarian writers).

However, if you have a question regarding a specific premise or the logic that
follows, then please quote that portion of Paul's text and phrase your question.
**Kitty]