--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 06/18/2009 07:41 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> > Stability Requirement
> > "[S]uch increase [in Lifetime Happiness] also will be most easily
> > achieved within an Environment that is very stable or at most undergoes
> > relatively small Changes of certain Parameters in a cyclical or
> > otherwise predictable manner." [1] The reviewer agrees that a stable,
> > predictable environment will best increase the Lifetime Happiness of the
> > individuals located inside.
>
> Meta
> The above should read "I agree that a stable ... ". Anything else is a
> subterfuge.
> /Meta

I, Chad Nelson, am a reviewer of your material. Calling myself what I
am is only natural. I reviewed this document. Therefore, I am a
reviewer. Paul you know who I am. There is no deception, trickery,
or subterfuge. Now whether my reviews are useful is a matter up for
debate.

> > The question, therefore, becomes what
> > possible solutions exist for achieving such an environment? Put another
> > way, any solution that purports to increase the Lifetime Happiness must
> > establish a measurable stability criteria. Yes, the goal is to
> > constantly increase stability, but there is a cut-off point as we
> > asymptotically approach one hundred percent stability where we say
> > this level is "good enough". A measurable stability criteria is an
> > amalgamation of various factors e.g. harm / unit time, environmental
> > fluctuations / unit time, various human system fluctuations / unit
> > time, etc. Human system fluctuations are related to the physical and
> > non-physical attributes of the human under obeservation. Also worth
> > pointing out is that short-term and long-term stability can be
> > considered once such metrics are defined.
>
> Meta
> Once again a "we" can't do anything! Only individuals think, choose and
> act. In particular "we" do not "asymptotically approach one hundred
> percent stability", although perhaps a Society as a whole does that
> according to some appropriate measure and system-wide process. In
> addition, there is no "we" to say that "this level is "good enough"".
> There are only individuals making individual evaluated choices and
> thereby setting the stability level of their self-ordered society.

The term "we" was used very loosely here, and was not intended to
imply a collective. This is a micro- not macro- approach. I agree
that macro-level planning fails. I agree that individuals not groups
make decisions, but systems like Wal-Mart can be developed that
satisfy the needs of many individuals with diverse wants. The
assertion is that such a system could be developed at the community
level. The system could exist and the happiness of each individual
could be enabled through stability and other factors.

> /Meta

> Many metrics could be defined to measure such stability (stock market
> indexes are one such) and perhaps will be done and prove to be valuable
> for aiding Freemen to optimize the self-ordered stability of their
> society. But you are completely missing the point that there is little
> purpose to any such measurement tool beforehand because a society of
> full liberty will be naturally self-ordered and stabilized, to whatever
> degree that its inhabitants decide, by means of their voluntary
> interactions rather than ordered from the top or by pseudo-external
> authorities. (In the Freeman Society there are no institutions or
> authorities in the sense of organizations or people with any special
> powers (except for the excellence of their products, services,
> knowledge and reasoning abilities.)

Disagree. Knowledge of the direction in which you wish to point
beforehand is crucial. It would be inappropriate to arbitrarily
assert that X property violations / year should be the goal. Rather
the goal is to establish a community that reduces the likelihood of
property violations. The individuals in the community can determine
what the acceptable property violation rate is and this can be
measured after the fact. This may vary from individual to individual.

It should also be mentioned that while each individual has their own
unique threshold generalizations can be made about a group of
individuals. Generalizations can also be determined about the sort of
environment that one should seek to create. Just like generalizations
can be made about Wal-Mart shoppers. I know what Wal-Mart does, and I
know why most people like it.

> > Achieving Stability
> > Once stability is clearly understood, methods need to be devised for
> > achieving and maintaining stability within the framework of the
> > "Social Meta-Needs". [1]
>
> It appears that you missed the whole point of a self-ordering society
> without any external or top-down ordering authorities and
> institutions. Think of it like the self-ordering homeostasis of a
> lifeform or of a simple pendulum or of the solar system. No one tells
> these systems how to behave. They automatically regulate themselves to
> keep a certain level of stability.

The point is NOT the establishment of a top-down authority, but rather
the point is to provide an environment that conduces the establishment
and growth of free communities.

> Yet too much stability is sometimes
> harmful. You may not realize that one of the signs of heart disease is
> that the heart beat is too rhythmical. You are still thinking like a
> socialist planner who knows better how society works than does the
> system of society itself as a response solely to the voluntary rational
> actions of all its members. Are you perhaps a closet Technocrat? -
> http://en.technocracynet.eu/

What is being proposed in a flexible framework that becomes what it
needs to be in order to satisfy the individual within its' boundaries.
When the term stability is used it should not be assumed that it means
calmness or a lack of perturbation. It means what the individuals
inside of the environment want it to mean. The point is that a
formula for successful implementation of such a social structure is
possible. A plant cannot grow in the winter unless a greenhouse is
developed that provides an environment for growth. My assertion is
that liberty and freedom cannot grow unless such "greenhouses" are
developed. Pay me to live in a stable place where you get to rule
yourself within the bounds of a voluntary social contract.

There is a chicken and egg issue here. Which comes first the
environment for freedom and liberty or the desire within an individual
to be free and liberated? Which comes first the desire for a decent
quality product at a cheap price or Wal-Mart? I assert that the two
are interlinked.

No, I am not a Socialist Planner, and no I am not a Technocrat.

> --Paul
>
> [A message I made to the group on 2/14/09 introduced readers to Paul's
> Internet experience with technocrats - "Paul Responds to Technocrats'
> Query re. NSC" - http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1982
**Kitty]

Chad Nelson, Reviewer

[Disclaimer: Chad Nelson has no position or authority as a "Reviewer"
of any material on this group. He is merely a reviewer in the same
manner and has precisely the same commenting status as anyone else
posting here. --Paul]