Roy, this is to inform you right up front that if you respond to this
message as you have to all others, I will not post your response. The
only exception will be if your response contains *only clearly direct
answers to the questions* that I have asked within my response below.
This seems to be something that you have not yet done at all. This
lack appears to be because you do not know how to read, analyze what I
am saying and compose a response directed to my comments, rather than
because you are being intentionally evasive. Instead your responses go
off in directions trying to explain libertarian philosophy to me (who
understands it all as much as it is capable of being understood)
rather than responding to my specific critiques of it.

The reason why I will not post any more response of this kind from you
is because I am gaining no value from this discussion as it is, but I
will not let your continued apparent lack of understanding of what I
am trying to convey be posted totally unanswered. So I assert my
privileges as group owner not to post a response to this message.

If you wish to comment or question directly relating to text of the
SMN or NSC or anything else on SelfSIP you are welcome to do so and I
will be happy to respond to that.

On 05/08/2009 03:21 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> Right off, I don't agree with your apparent description of
> difference between a statement of principle and a statement of
> philosophy.

/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (13 May
2009) defines a "principle" as:

*1 a* *:* a general or fundamental truth *:* a comprehensive and
fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption on which others are based or
from which others are derived *:* elementary proposition <the
/principle//s /of physics> *b *(1) *:* a governing law of conduct *:*
an opinion, attitude, or belief that exercises a directing influence
on the life and behavior *:* rule or code of usually good conduct by
which one directs one's life or actions <a man of no /principle/> <the
honorable /principle//s /to which my father reared me> and gives as
synonyms or closely related words: axiom, fundamental, law, theorem.

Clearly a principle is a statement considered to be a very fundamental
and descriptive truth within its area of relevance. In fact, principles
are usually the foundational statements of philosophy from which other
implied statements, some also called principles, are derived. That
being the case, if the words and phrases used to form such fundamental
truths are not fully defined and totally unambiguous in meaning, then
such statements cannot be useful as the basis of anything.

However, even if I accept your distinction between philosophy and
principle that does not help the situation. Don't forget that I called
myself libertarian for many decades during which I read the major
libertarian writings of "principle" as well as the major writings of
libertarian philosophy behind those principles. Unfortunately the
philosophy behind the statements summarizing it is no better than the
summarizing statements, with respect to clear definition, consistency
and completeness. Produce any portion of any such libertarian
philosophy and I will give you the same kind of critique of its
errors.

> 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.

But the problem is that these words do not have "commonly understood
meanings" that are *unique*, and, therefore, any statement using them
will not mean the same thing to all people reading it. It is as if the
English language has embedded in it several distinct languages all
using the same words. When languages use different words to mean the
same thing this is a problem that can be resolved, but when the same
word is used by different people in different contexts to mean
different things, there is really no solution to the problem of actual
meaning of any one piece of text (unless they are different parts of
speech, eg. noun bear and verb bear). And the biggest problem here is
that most people are not even aware of this problem, so that when they
read something, they actually think they know the meaning that the
writer intended for that text. This is particularly a problem these
days with the Internet because so many people read vast amounts of
written items very quickly and do not stop to think to think that many
English words have multiple meanings and the one that they have used
in reading may not be the one meant by the author. Comments made to an
author based on an unintended meaning of a word are not uncommon. I
think that they are often the source of much wrangling that takes
place in online discussions. In a very real sense such people are
speaking different languages and they don't know it. So they end up
talking *past* each other and getting highly annoyed at each other as
a result.

Particularly when trying to appeal to a broad audience (people who
necessarily will have many more different interpretations of ambiguous
words than will a small in-house audience), it is imperative to
clearly define one's terms in order make sure that the correct meaning
is conveyed to all. I maintain that the primary reason why this is not
done in any so-called libertarian principles is because the underlying
philosophy does not have a sound fundamental enough basis to enable
any statement attempting to summarize its main conclusions to clearly
and unambiguously describe them. So the fact that the libertarian
summarizing statements are poor is a direct result of the fundamental
inadequacy of the libertarian philosophy underlying them.

> 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.

You simply have not gone back far enough in history, and also Ayn Rand
was very bad at not giving citations and attribution for the ideas in
her writings (except for Aristotle). The origin of all these ideas
goes way back, some of them further than Aristotle. The idea of rights
was fully developed in the writings of John Locke in the 17th century
and all the US Founding Fathers knew it well. This philosophical
approach later came to be called liberalism and is now called
classical liberalism (see the writings of Herbert Spencer and John
Stuart Mill in the 19th century). Ayn Rand took these ideas and
synthesized them with the philosophy of rational egoisim obtained from
Aristotle and many others later, and with the economics of Capitalism
mainly as developed by the Austrian school under Mises, into what she
named Objectivism. Libertarianism is merely the social/political/economic
portion of Objectivism and eschews the parts of Objectivism that deals
with living a rational individual life.

The leaders of the Libertarian Party most certainly do know how
libertarianism is related to Objectivism. They also know that a
significant number (possibly most) libertarians came to those
viewpoints from reading the works of Ayn Rand, particularly starting
with her great fiction writings.

>> On 04/29/2009 01:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:

Meta
snipped text including my own background and Roy's acknowledgment of it.
/Meta

>> 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.

I am not sure just what Darwinist philosophy entails, besides being
convinced that his theory of the origin of species is essentially
correct (which I have always agreed with). But you are not the first
person I have met who was a libertarian before discovering Ayn Rand.

> 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.

Yes, that is certainly a major problem with utilitarianism. It is
because utilitarians do not accept the principle of methodological
individualism, which implies that there is fundamentally no
possibility of comparing the happiness of one person with the
happiness of another.

When I stated above that SMN was a synthesis, I expected you to
realize that did not mean that I accept and have incorporated all the
derived slogans and summarizing statements of each of those
philosophies! Again consulting /Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, Unabridged/ . Merriam-Webster, 2002.
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (13 May 2009), "synthesis" is
defined as:

*2 a* *:* composition or combination of parts or elements so as to
form a whole </synthesis/ of those arts ... completely blended to
achieve ... performance at its finest -- Miles Kastendieck> *c* *:*
the combining of often varied and diverse ideas, forces, or factors
into one coherent or consistent complex; /also/ *:* the complex so
formed <a summa is a /synthesis/ of the philosophy of an age>
*3 a* *:* deductive reasoning from general principles or causes to
particular instances or effects *c* /Hegelianism/ *:* the combination
of the partial truths of a thesis and its antithesis into a higher
stage of truth -- compare DIALECTIC

My meaning of synthesis is a combination of all of the above. I have
found and been inspired by some good ideas in all of: foundations of
mathematics, Aristotelian philosophy, classical liberalism,
voluntaryist philosophy, individualist anarchism, humanism,
utilitarianism, psychology, Objectivism and have combined those good
(correct) ideas into a coherent, consistent and complete whole.
(Whereas the totality of those individual philosophies are generally
at odds with one another.)

In addition Utilitarianism is not *necessarily* as bad as your two
slogans above suggest. One of the most reasonable libertarian
philosophers, Jan Naverson, began as a Utilitarian.

Meta
snipped comment about majority rule needing no response.
/Meta

>> 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.

Exactly! (to the last). I long ago decided that voting is both
ethically and strategically incorrect. There are many good books and
articles that persuasively makes these points if you google for them,
but I do not wish to discuss this tangential matter any more.

>> 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.

But the possible "practicality" is precisely what I was getting at.
Remember that if any concept or statement about reality is valid, then
it must necessarily be able to be implemented and become practical.
Anyway you said that you were going to describe what you think is
impractical about the ideas and implementations of the SMN theory, so
please get on with that. But I will only accept your comments if you
quote one or more pieces of my writings for which you have some
critical comments or questions.

>>> 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.

Since an oxymoron is a self-contradictory phrase, "unjust right" being
an oxymoron implies that the attribute "just" is a subset of the
attribute "right" (anything that is just is necessarily a right). This
means that nothing additional is added to the word "right" by applying
the adjective "just" to it - ie the adjective "just" above is
redundant and should logically be removed.

[Paul examines things in the most rigorous of terms. For me, I read
your statement and thought: Adding the word "just" to "right(s)" does
not give the latter word any more meaning than without it. Also, if
one accepts the usage of the phrase "just rights", then s/he must
logically accept the phrase "unjust rights". Since this does not ring
true (ie it does not seem to describe anything at all), there must be
something wrong with the concept of "rights". This is how my thinking
went even before meeting Paul, though it was different aspects of this
idea of "rights" which I found troublesome. But I became somewhat
cloudy on how to proceed from there. **Kitty]

However, there is more that needs to be done, since neither "control"
nor "choice" are totally clear words until they are given a rigorous
definition. For example wrt the latter word, am I or am I not removing
your choices a) when I say to you "your money or your life", b) when I
handcuff you, and c) when I unpermittedly grab you as you are about to
fall off a cliff. I can give examples for "control" if you want them.

> I think most would define a "just right" as, that which one has come
> to possess because of morally, ethically, or philosophically
> justifiable reasons.

For reasons given above and because it has been totally undefined, I
will ignore the adjective "just" in the above. Furthermore, neither
you nor anyone else has ever demonstrated in what way a "right" is
like any other material existent that a person may "possess" or like
any other personal or biological characteristic (or attribute) that he
may have. ("Possession" is also a tricky concept that needs a very
precise definition - as given in the NSC.)

In your phrase above "morally, ethically, or philosophically ", since
ethics (and usually morality too) are a branch of any complete
philosophy, the first two are subsumed buy the third. But then what
exactly is "philosophically justifiable reasons"? And please show me
any philosophy that provides such. Feel free to quote any text that
you think does that.

> What justifiable reasons? Philosophically, rights are an extension
> of the self.

Sounds great until you try to figure out what it means. I will take
the noun "self" as meaning: "the entire person of an individual" (the
primary meaning given in the dictionary already cited). But then this
new statement says nothing more than the old one - a right is
something that a human individual has or possesses in some sense. So
the problem is the same as before.

Since you have now professed to be a Darwinist, here is another
conundrum for you. Human beings evolved by a process of slow genetic,
physiological and psychological changes from animals that had
different characteristics then do humans. There is clear evidence in
the evolutionary record for the gradual development of fingers, for
example. For less tangible characteristics such as happiness, thought,
recognition, etc there are near genetic relatives that have similar
characteristic so that it is clear that those of humans also developed
gradually from some common ancestor. So if rights are some kind of
human possession or characteristic, where did they come from in
evolution? Do other primates have rights? Did the neanderthals have
rights? - if so that did nothing to prevent them either dying off or
getting wiped out by humans (there is debate on which actually
happened).

> They stem from the concept of rational egoism. The freedom to freely
> control all aspects of the self for the benefit of the self.

No. The last sentence is not the definition of rational egoism.
Rather, in Objectivism, rational egoism is the *desire* and the *goal*
to act in one's rational self-interest (where rational means with the
longest range, widest viewed thought possible - but how that applies
to a mentally retarded human Rand never really explained). Rational
egoism is not any kind of "freedom" either as a liberty or an
available action (see the NSC for the important difference between
Liberty and Freedom as Available Actions).

However, one major flaw with this definition of rational egoism
juxtaposed with Objectivism's statement that a human should always act
in hir rational self-interest, is that it would imply that committing
suicide is always wrong (it cannot possibly be in one's *self*
interest since it destroys the self). The SMN concept of Lifetime
Happiness as the purpose of a human's life extends the concept of
rational egoism to solve this logical problem. It eliminates the flaw
because a human's situation may be such that hir Lifetime Happiness
can only decrease from this point in time, so that suicide is the only
way to maximize Lifetime Happiness and therefore is rational under
such circumstances. This is one example of the way in which SMN is
a synthesis of Objectivism, together with other philosophical roots.

BTW, a lot of what I am retyping here is already in the NSC
annotations (about 800 KB) which it appears that no one has the time
to read - at least I have not had any comment on anything written
there.

> "...endowed by our creator..." is the unfortunate way that Jefferson
> put it.

Perhaps not Jefferson. Although he produced the initial draft, the
Declaration of Independence was effectively written by a committee, in
the sense that it had to be acceptable to many varied people so that
they would all sign it. The language of some earlier documents which
were mainly the work of Jefferson was actually better in some
important ways than was the Declaration of Independence.

> It's obvious that what he meant was that we are born owning ourself,
> and therefore we are born having dominion over ourself.

Nonsense! All that I have to do to prove that you do not have
"dominion over yourself" is to shoot you.

This is a meaningless and ineffectual as it would be for me to say to
a cop, upon being stopped for speeding: "I don't sanction your right
to stop me and make me pay a fine" - which is what someone accused me
of thinking of doing with my "Declaration of Individual Independence"
- see http:/selfsip.org/solutions/DOII.html (which also has an
annotated version: http:/selfsip.org/solutions/DOII_annotated.html )

> Rand would say that "man, by his nature, is an independent being."

Which is a totally useless statement. If I decide to tie you up and
cart you off to my 10,000 acres in the middle of the jungle (or
anyplace), it does not at all help you to continue thinking that you
are an independent being. Any human can only remain an independent
being if all those around him agree that s/he should be at Liberty to
be an independent being. And they will only do that if they all
understand and agree that such agreement and unintentional action
against your Liberty will optimally increase the Lifetime Happiness of
each of them, and if you also grant all of them the same Liberty.

[The above is not an outlandish example given that kidnappings for
political purposes or simply monetary gain are rather common
occurrences in many parts of the world. **Kitty]

>> 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.

How about if I call someone a "f**king a$$hole"? Is that not against
hir will? Is it somehow in violation of hir rights? Should it be
outlawed in a society of full liberty?
What if I call a child a "brainless twit". My ex-wife (now deceased)
once did that. Is that coercive force? Should it be allowed? Should it
be outlawed in a society of full liberty?

Note: These questions and many others below are rhetorical. They are
not questions for which I want answers. Rather, they are intended to
make you and other reader *think* and to realize that libertarian
*principles* (and such undefined phrases as "against the will" in your
text above) do not guide one to an answer to them (and nether do
Objectivist principles either). This is true even though I grant that
on a superficial level libertarian and Objectivist principles sound
very reasonable - they certainly sold me for some time.

I have addressed the meaning and place of "fraud" in the second part
of my response to your first message.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2021

>> 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.

Both fingernails and hair are a part of my self. But who owns them
after I cut them away from my self, perhaps on common property?
What about the Information that is in my brain/mind? Whether or not it
is property when it is *only* in my brain/mind is pointless to ask in
any practical sense, because at that point I clearly have total
possession and control of it. However, is it property after I write
it, speak it or otherwise make it accessible to others?
How about if I grow my vegetables on your Real Estate or simply pick
apples from your tree? I have certainly produced them myself, at least
partly. Are they my property?
My smile and general appearance is certainly an extension of my self.
In what sense is it property? Think about how maintaining that my
appearance is my property must necessarily imply some coercive
restriction on others, and so is contradictory to the NAP.

>> 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.

This phrasing appears to treat me as the student who is learning from
you. Whereas, you are the student who appears to know only a poorly
founded ill-defined pseudo-philosophy, libertarianism and to a lesser
extent Objectivism, who could be learning from my counterexamples to
libertarian so-called principles. Please recall my introductory
comments about my background, the purpose of which was to show you
that I had read *all* the libertarian and Objectivist arguments by 25
years ago. (I have read every word that Ayn Rand every published by
the mid-1970s, after which time her writings were on only current
events and politics.)

Roy, I am not gaining anything from this discussion as it is, and from
your responses so far neither are you. You need to go back to the SMN
treatise and tell me where you think its premises or logic is flawed.
It is not good enough to merely tell me that you disagree with some
conclusion. That is merely an opinion and useless to me. Unless you
can tell me where the premises of that conclusion are flawed then you
cannot logically disagree with the conclusion are providing little
value to me. I am beginning to think that trying to get through to you
is like trying to teach calculus to someone who thinks that all
problems of physics can be solved with algebra.

>> 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.

As I have shown above (and in the SMN treatise), that is not a
definition. Also, what is generally described by a "right" is not the
same general type of thing as are intangibles like happiness, which is
an emotion, well able to be sensed by others and recently even
neurologically able to be measured. As I stated in the SMN:

<< if "rights" are assumed to exist as human Attributes, then it seems
that they must be allowed to have such evanescent properties of
existence as to be like absolutely no other Attribute of any other
type of existent. Extending the meaning of Attribute in such a fuzzy
manner would appear to be neither logically nor metaphysically sound.<<

> It none the less exists.

Your saying so does not make it so. I am convinced that the concept of
"rights" is non-existent and therefore invalid, and I have given
adequate logical demonstration of that both within these messages and
even better in the SMN treatise. You have not directly addressed and
attempted refutation of any of my points, but instead merely quoted
(or paraphrased) back at me more libertarian and objectivist
description of what "rights" are.

> It's existence can be deduced based on rationality.

Then carefully and clearly define just what "rationality" is, prove
its existence and logically show that "rights" or a "right" follows
from it.
Just saying that the existence of a "right" (which "right"?) "can be
deduced based on rationality" does not show that a "right" exists
unless you, or someone else, performs that deduction.

I know that you have read statements like the above from supposedly
erudite and intelligent writers, but you must realize that it really
does not say anything by itself. If such writers actually think that
it means something then they are not nearly as erudite and intelligent
as they purport to be.

> My argument is this: A human is a human.

Sadly, the above shows that your background in logical reasoning is
inadequate for us to get anywhere in discussion unless/until you
strengthen it. Even though Ayn Rand herself tried to make something
out of it, "A is A" is a tautology. It has no logical content. It
therefore, cannot imply anything and cannot logically be the basis for
an argument (in the sense of a logically reasoned set of statements
implying a conclusion).

Roy, imagine that you are talking to friendly extra-terrestrials or
even members of a newly discovered primitive tribe on earth and you
are trying to convey to them the meaning of the concept "rights". Do
you really think that saying: "A human is a human" (or the equivalent
words in their language) would help them to understand anything about
the meaning of the concept "rights"? (This is another thought
question.)

> It is part of the nature of humans to be independent.

No. You are confusing a human's "nature" with hir needs to actualize
hir nature. (This is fundamentally a confusion of ends and means.) A
human's nature is to act to optimally increase hir lifetime happiness.
That is a human's ultimate or end life purpse. (I note in passing that
Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises agreed with me on that - if my lifetime
happiness extension of their formulations of the purpose of human life
is ignored). While it is true that for most humans, independence is a
necessary precondition for maximal lifetime happiness, there is also
no doubt that for some humans this will best be accomplished by being
the dependent of some other human. This is true for all children until
they have become sufficiently developed and it is likely true for some
mentally or socially retarded humans. In more primitive societies this
was undoubtedly true for many women who lived far better lives as
dependents of wise and generous husbands than they would have if fully
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)

No. You are confusing the *definition* of "independence" with its
utility as a means toward happiness. For many people, independence
*is* an essential means toward optimally increasing their lifetime
happinesses, but as I have pointed out above, it is not necessarily
true that independence always leads to greater happiness.

> A right then is the expression of an individual human doing what is
> in the nature of humans to do.

Is urinating a right? Is scratching an itch? Is smiling, crying,
shouting, sleeping, etc? Are murdering, raping and pillaging rights?
All of these are "expressions of an individual human doing what is in
the nature of humans to do", some humans at least. All of these
actions are taken to attempt to optimally increase the lifetime
happiness of the individual taking them, which is the most fundamental
aspect of the common "nature" of all humans. (The above are thought
questions.)

The *only* question of importance, and the *only* way to convince
anyone that some action is "wrong", is to show hir *why* such action
is actually *not* going to optimally increase hir lifetime happiness.
(BTW, this is even true for scratching an itch, if done too much.) In
fact an action not leading to an optimal increase in the lifetime
happiness of an individual is the only logically tenable definition of
the meaning of that action being a "wrong" action for that particular
individual.

> And therefore, to deny this "right" is to deny the human-ness of an
> individual.

No. Once again you are confusing human *attributes or characteristics*
with human *needs or requirements* in order to achieve their life
purposes.

By tying someone up or stabbing hir or stealing hir car, I do not deny
hir "human-ness". In fact the last action relies on hir human-ness at
having created sufficient value to have purchased a car. Rather, all
these these actions, reduce and remove the conditions of existence
(hir Social Meta-Needs) that s/he requires to be able to optimally
increase hir lifetime happiness, which is why they harm hir.

>> "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.

Roy, this is starting to get very frustrating because you pay no
attention to my criticisms of a statement or phrase, but instead
attempt to teach me what it means by putting it into your own, still
ambiguous and ill-defined words.

This will be my last response to this branch of the thread, precisely
because you rarely directly address my points. My point above was
about the nature of definitions, specifically of defining the word and
concept of "right" and the fact that the above expression was not
doing that in any logically meaningful way. You did not address that
point at all. "Meant to emphasize and clarify" is not part of
"defining". If you haven't first done the defining then it is
premature and meaningless to try to "emphasize and clarify". In fact
if you have done the defining fully and adequately there should be no
need for clarification, although there might still be a need for
comparison and contrast in order to help the reader fully understand
the definition and how it relates to other concepts (just as a list of
synonyms and antonyms in a dictionary helps one's understanding).

[The techniques of using words without defining them and then writing
more as a way of "clarifying" and/or "expanding" is extremely common
in written works, and libertarian (and objectivist) writers are just
as prone to this failing as are any others. Many who read these
articles and books are impressed by the artistic flow, the wealth of
facts presented and/or the volume of words, likely thinking that the
writer has actually said much more of value than s/he has. They are
also enthralled and distracted from critical analysis by these
methods, much like an audience that is so distracted by the movements
of a magician and hir environment that they completely miss the action
that actually causes the apparent magic. (On this last point -
http://sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/42623/title/Specialis_Revelio%21 )

I contend that it is the lack of critical thinking prevalent in much
of the current populace that enables such writing to continue to be
highly valued and sought as sources of wisdom. Critical thinking was
not a subject offered when I was in high school (graduated 1963), but
at least I knew that such subjects existed and I did begin some
exploring of logic in 1969, though never in depth until joining Paul.
And then I asked lots of questions of Paul as to how some point he was
writing followed from another. This is something that you are not
doing at all Roy. Repeating what you have read by libertarians or
objectivists writers, even in your own paraphrasing, is not equivalent
to asking questions about certain portions of the SMN theory. **Kitty]

>> 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.

Sorry, but it does not emphasize or clarify anything at all.

>> 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.

Buy you made no such argument! You merely said that there was one. In
any case, neither of the possible requirements that I stated above can
possibly be in the nature of man since there have always been and will
always be humans who do not have such adequate defense capability nor
is there any existing agreement with all other humans not to take
actions against what is in hir "sole dominion".

>> 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.

But government does not "protect" its citizens against violence,
theft, etc. Just ask any police officer if his purpose is to protect
and see what answer you get. Private protection agencies can and will
do a much better job of that. All the police are interested in is that
you and everyone else obeys the law or is apprehended and punished
when you don't. Whether you are harmed or not is of little interest to
them - that is not their job.

[My former husband was a police officer for ~24 years and he regularly
reminded people that "protection" was not the duty of any law
enforcement officer. Such a statement was typically his opening line
when he later taught concealed carry weapons courses in Arizona - and
therefore the need for individuals to be prepared to protect
themselves. **Kitty]

In any case, one first needs to have some sort of Contract with most
others that they will not seek to harm you and that if they
accidentally or negligently do they will restitute you for your harm.
Then you might look to have some sort of defense organization defend
all of those who agree to that arrangement from all those who do not.
The contract is absolutely necessary because it will clearly define
the terms under which everyone is interacting so that it is totally
clear just whether and when harm has occurred.

>> 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.

Rational egoism is a philosophical concept and principle. As a
philosophical concept and principle, it cannot prevent anything. What
might prevent people doing something is their actions or inactions
based on understanding and following the principle of rational egoism
(which is very similar to my completed extension of it as "the purpose
of a human is to optimize hir lifetime happiness"). However, as I show
below, even given the best possible definition of rational, this is
not always correct.
And BTW, "coercive force" is a redundancy, unless you very carefully
define the two words so that they are different and so that "coercive
force" is a subset of all types of force. (That is what adjectives do
- they produce subsets of the members of the set of things described
by the word that they modify.)

> The irrational people however, must be met with preventive and
> punitive force.

Huh? Surely it is irrational of me to flagellate myself (or let myself
become obese or get a sunburn, for that matter, given all the evidence
that these are harmful), but I would hardly agree that any of these
should be "met with preventive and punitive force". Once again you
totally fail to get to the heart of the matter and because of that end
up with statements that have many, many exceptions and are therefore
virtually useless as any kind of guiding principle.

But not all harms caused by others are due to the irrationality of
those others. Certainly total prevention of all harm would be great,
but that is clearly impossible in reality. Rather, what is needed is
full restitution, being put back to the state of happiness that one
would have been in if the harming action had never occurred.

>> "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."

I already addressed why this is neither a definition of property nor
anything meaningful and useful. It is not even as good as what John
Locke did over 300 years ago.

> Some individuals will indeed not accept this definition of property.
> They are not "reasonable." And, they are not libertarians, by my
> definition.

There are a great many intelligent people out there who would not be
reasonable by your definitions. Unfortunately those same people would
say that most libertarians are not reasonable by their definitions. I
don't think this kind of "yes you are" - "no I'm not" (which has been
going on for eons) is going to get society anywhere.

>> "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.

Then it is worthless.
Additional contrasting and comparing descriptions have an explanatory
purpose, but redundancy is always pointless. You don't convince any
rational person by saying the same thing over and over. That is like
the old myth that the way to get a person who speaks another language
to better understand you is to speak louder, even to the extent of
shouting. As Kitty pointed out above, a volume of words is also useful
to hide and evade the weakness of one's arguments and the lack of
foundations. This is sometimes referred to by the phrase "baffle them
with bullshi*t" and politicians are masters at it.

[Or the variant, that to just speak the same words slower will make
all the difference, even if the other person has no familiarity with
your language at all. **Kitty]

>> "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.

To the last, all that I need to say is "no it is not". You have not
defined it in any clear way. I don't care how many libertarians agree
with your idea of a definition. 99.9% of people agreeing with
something does not make it true. Democratic majority is simply not how
truth and meaning are determined.

> However, here is the second area were libertarian see a legitimate
> role of government -- to peaceably resolve disputes.

Do you not realize that there are many libertarian anarchists, who do
not see any place for government at all? Are you saying these people
are not libertarians? (More thought questions.) In order to get
financing any government must either use coercion to collect taxes
(certainly I won't pay them voluntarily) or get their money from
lotteries, which is effectively hoping that adequate numbers of people
are sufficiently irrational that they will take part in such negative
sum games (not me again). In addition, any government must necessarily
outlaw non-government police and court systems, as a minimum, or else
it will soon disappear from existence, since those agencies would be
totally voluntarily funded. There is certainly no need for a
government to "peacefully resolve disputes" (which current governments
don't even do, btw - rather they coerce all parties in the dispute
and generally end up satisfying no one but the government workers
themselves).
Therefore, if one examines the issue carefully, the existence of any
form of government must be contrary to even the incomplete libertarian
Non-Aggression Principle and cannot be acceptable to any rational
libertarian. This is something that Ayn Rand in her intransigence
would not see.

> Because, to envision a society without disputes between rational
> individuals is a fantasy.

That is the most sensible thing you have said in this whole message.

> (And by the way, it would NOT be a place I would want to live.)

But except for the impossibility of it, I do not see why this follows.
Why would you not want the number of disputes between rational
individuals to be as small as possible? Do you not agree with Rand's
statement that there are no conflicts of interest between rational
men? (Thought question again.) That is one profound statement of hers
that I really loved when I first read it, and I still fully agree with
it. It was a guiding principle behind the creation of SMN and it is
now a very clear conclusion of it.

>> 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.

Roy, that is ridiculous. One cannot contend that some statement is a
guiding principle for human action when it so nebulous that one cannot
know which way it guides and which way it does not. Poetry may be
nebulous on purpose so that each person can place their own
interpretation on it (sort of like a template or dot picture, which
one can fill in different ways), however, this is not appropriate to
the rules by which a society is intended to operate.

But once again you went your own way and did not address any of my
questions at all, much less give reasoned answers. They were asked for
a purpose and by ignoring them you are effectively insulting me and
wasting my time. The above question was specifically asked to show you
that your nebulous principle does not even clearly guide such a simple
action as that example.

>> 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.

But you have to define that adequately first and libertarians do not
even do that. In addition, if children are a special class then why
not women, blacks, muslims, those over 80, or anyone who has
committed a crime, a special class? What determines when you have a
special class of humans, the members of whom have different "rights"?
(Again, thought questions.)

> The libertarian perspective is this: Parents have a fiduciary
> responsibility to protect their children, ie to protect children's
> potential life long happiness.

I am not interested in "the libertarian perspective" (which I know far
better than you, btw). I am interested in definitions (of a child, for
example), why there is any "duty" by parents, where does this "duty"
come from and why is it reasonable. Btw, any duty of parents implies
that children have a so-called "positive right" which is normally
something the libertarians abhor giving to anyone. So this gets
totally contradictory to libertarianism's fundamentals and even
appears to contradict the NAP.

> To the extent that parents' use force for this purpose, it is
> justified, in fact mandatory.

Ridiculous! It is never mandatory to use force on another individual.
It is only sometimes a good choice in order to protect hir from harm.
But even then one must take the consequences (maybe the adult that you
saved wanted to commit suicide or maybe in saving the person you
harmed hir).

> 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.

And what possible person or group of persons is so omniscient s/he can
decide whether someone's use of force "diminishes [a child's]
potential for lifelong happiness", which seems to be what you are
saying you mean by "justified" in this case. This method, that has
been used for centuries, is highly open to abuse and is surely not the
best way to guide, monitor, persuade, admonish. change the behavior of
parents, and to protect and restitute children.

>> 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.

Actually, I don't think that most libertarians would agree with this
last, but in any case who is to decide what is this nebulous balance
of damages.

> But otherwise his actions would be considered by most libertarian as
> reasonable justified.

But once again you missed the major point of all my examples - that
they contradict the fundamental libertarian principle that you stated
above and they contradict the NAP also,

You simply cannot have principles that anyone is able to individually
decide to break whenever it suits hir or you certainly will have
chaos. Even the governments of current societies recognize that the
law (their rules of order for society) must be carefully defined, so
that it is reasonably clear when one is breaking the law and when one
is not. The entire point of a complete and consistent principle is to
provide guidance in *every possible situation* - to ensure that there
are *not* exceptions here, there and everywhere. The SMN supplies
principles that guide behavior in *every possible case of human
interaction*, which is why it is far superior to any foundation of
guidance that libertarians have ever come up with.

>> 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.

That is essentially what I said above, but again I was not asking what
you or any other libertarian or objectivist would do. Rather I was
showing you how it violates the totally inadequate libertarian
so-called principles!

> 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.

If you had a complete and consistent philosophical foundation guiding
you, then you would know what you would do without question.

> 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?

I answered already above. The consequences of the action can not be
any less reducing of my lifetime happiness than dying by not taking
the sustenance. This would only be true in the case where it was me or
another person that I loved so much that future life without hir would
be negative. If s/he thought the same way, then we would simply either
survive or die together. However, this latter is a different extreme
situation, not the one that I posed above, wherein I said nothing
about knowing the owner of the food and water at all.

>> 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.
>
> Libertarian principles, as summarized in this statement of
> principle, have been fully defined by others much more capable than
> I.

Yes, to the latter, but not to the former. They have never been "fully
defined" and never given a complete and consistent basis. (Roy, you
really need to critically examine the meanings of those words -
"complete" and "consistent" - and read some logical texts describing
them.)

> 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.

That is easy. Libertarianism is not intended to be a guide to human
action in general as is objectivism, but merely a guide to human
social and political interactions. That is why its principles are not
founded on objectivism, but rather from classical liberalism and free
market economics, which also is on what Ayn Rand based her principles
of social and political interaction. She attempted to derive the
principles of classical liberalism and free market economics from
rational egoism but she failed to do so in a consistent and complete
manner. That is what my SMN theory has fixed. I have finished the
philosophical foundation that she began.

It is regrettable that so little is taught in the schools of current
societies about the important meanings of definitions, means, methods,
processes, requirements and ends, and the logic or reasoning that
connects them to each other.

[My thought on this last of Paul's comments is that government schools
have much to lose by including in their curricula "the important
meanings of definitions, means, methods, processes, requirements and
ends, and the logic or reasoning that connects them to each other." A
complacent, or at least easily placated, citizenry is not possible if
individuals are critical thinkers and the latter could easily begin to
question the need for governments at all.

Hopefully many homeschooling parents or those sending their children
to private schools (or even supplementing government schools) will see
that these subjects Paul listed are included in the education of their
children. Such parents would be individuals who have come to
understand the need for such reasoning techniques themselves and
consequently for their children. **Kitty]

Roy, in closing please reread my opening remarks to this message in
regards to any reply from you.

--Paul