On 06/23/2009 03:13 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> Throughout many of the writings on SelfSIP.org tools like Social
> Preferencing, Honesty, and Anonymity are referred to as if they are
> ends as opposed to means.

This is not true. It may only appear that way because you have still
not read the essential parts of SelfSIP in the order and manner which
is indicated.

From the entry page:

<<
It is recommended that the Sections of the Self-Sovereign Individual
Project be explored in the order given below since the ideas and
thoughts introduced in the earlier documents are preparatory in building
toward the more advanced discussions of the later documents. However, it
may be advantageous to read the Declaration of Individual Independence
in the Achievement Section (3rd below) immediately after the Critiques
Section (1st below), since much of the basis for the Theory of Social
Meta-Needs in the Fundamentals Section (2nd below) was first written there.

* Critiques of Government Founding Documents and Historically
Influential Political Writings
<http://selfsip.org/critiques/index.html>
* The Philosophical Basis of a Stable Ordered Society
<http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/index.html> Improved 2/17/09
* Founding Documents Generating a Stable Ordered Society of
Self-Sovereign Individuals
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/index.html> Improved 2/17/09
* Program of Implementation of the Project Goals
<http://selfsip.org/implementations/index.html> Incomplete
* Dialogues, Critiques and Commentaries Concerning other Viewpoints
<http://selfsip.org/dialogues/index.html> Improved 6/7/09
* Focus on Freedom <http://selfsip.org/focus/index.html> Improved
4/20/09
<<

From the preface of the Social Meta-Needs page:

<<
*For the first time reader* it is probably best to *not* use the links
from these technical terms, but instead, simply attempt to understand
such a word or phrase to have the vernacular meaning that seems
appropriate to the context in which it is used. After in this manner
obtaining some understanding of the ideas presented in this treatise,
the reader will then be better positioned to understand the need for the
specialized definitions of such words, when these are pursued on a
second reading. Since the meanings and usages of these technical terms
are usually significantly different (often subtly so) from any
vernacular usages (even though related in meaning), these meanings and
the need for them will require this kind of circular learning approach
to be fully appreciated. It is my intention, and my hope, that this
approach will enable the reader to understand the deep and novel
ramifications of the Theory of Social Meta-Needs, and to give it
serious consideration as a basis for optimal human society.<<

Note in the above the description of a highly incremental approach to
understanding it.

From the Achievement section index page:

<<It is particularly important to read the
Critiques of Revered Founding Documents and Historical Writings
<http://selfsip.org/critiques/index.html> before proceeding to the
documents and essays in this section. This is partly because the ideas
were developed and the writing was done in that order. Thus, by jumping
ahead you will not have the background information explained in previous
pages with which to fully understand and digest the ideas of a page in
another Section. Instead, if you first read the Critiques Section
<http://selfsip.org/critiques/index.html>, you will be more prepared and
able to grasp the points being made in the pages of this Section and to
understand the full reasoning for each new idea as you encounter and
strive to assimilate it. However, while it is probably best to read the
Declaration of Individual Independence immediately after the Critiques
Section, it is also probably best to read the Theory of Social
Meta-Needs <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html> in the
Fundamentals Section <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/index.html> before
reading in full detail its partial implementation by the Natural Social
Contract.

We (Paul and Kitty Antonik Wakfer <http://morelife.org/personal/>) refer
to the documents and essays of this section as "solution achievement"
because we are convinced that they provide the clearest, most consistent
solution (in the sense of a set of operating principles and methods) to
the problem of social order without compromise of individual liberty
which has ever been devised. Obviously then they must contain many
original, "outside the box" concepts presented for the first time
anywhere from such an integrated viewpoint. Because we are convinced
that it is pointless to begin a journey until one's destination is
fully determined and understood, the operating principles and methods
contained in these solution achievement documents and essays are the
necessary second stage (after determining that a journey away from one's
present location must be undertaken) of the /Self-Sovereign Individual
Project/ - A program to achieve freedom from government coercion for
those who understand it, want it, and are responsible enough to live it.
The material presented in the other Sections (Freedom Dialogues and
Commentaries <http://selfsip.org/dialogues/index.html> and Focus on
Freedom <http://selfsip.org/focus/index.html>) should be viewed as
adjunctive aids to understanding.<<

Special Note at the top of the Natural Social Contract:

<<The reader will only be able to understand this document if s/he has
first read the essay entitled "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for
Optimal Interaction"
<http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html> and then begins
this document by reading the section entitled "Introduction: Purpose,
Terminology and Internal Conventions" (immediately below), concurrent
with or followed by reading its separate explanatory and elucidating
annotation (which can be accessed by clicking on the shaded title of the
Introduction).

*For the first time reader* it is probably best to *not* use the links
from the capitalized words to their definitions and also to skip the
large Definitions Section immediately below this Introduction Section.
Instead, for a first reading it is *strongly* suggested that the reader
simply attempt to use the vernacular meaning of a capitalized word which
seems appropriate to the context in which it is used in this document,
and to begin reading at the Whereas Section
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#whereas_section> which is the
beginning of the heart of the Natural Social Contract and all its
contract clauses. After in this manner obtaining a glimmer of what the
Natural Social Contract is about and how it operates, the reader will
then be in a better position to delve into the full nuances of the
definitions and their meanings within the contract clauses. Even though
related, the meanings and usages of the linked capitalized words are
often quite significantly different than any of their vernacular usages,
and such differences will only become fully clear by using a circular
approach to learning. Only by doing so will it be possible to fully
understand the meaning and operation of the Natural Social Contract.<<

Moreover the Social Meta-Needs treatise makes very clear the only
possible end goal of any human's life in its section The Purpose of Life:

<<The nature of my Existence as a human being is such that that
Existence would not be consistent (and thus would not Exist as what it
is - what evolution has wrought it to be) if my life purpose were not
to optimally increase my Lifetime Happiness.<<

The concluding sentence of a long annotation to the Natural Social
Contract containing a multifaceted discussion of happiness:

<<Therefore, the *accumulation* of /Happiness/ to optimally increase
/Lifetime Happiness/ must actually be what each human seeks.<<

> A tool is amoral. It is the use of the
> tool that can be determined useful or not useful.

I totally agree and have always made clear the difference between means
and ends. However, social interaction "means" are highly different from
personal "tools" (your metaphor is once again highly inappropriate).
My argument is that all three of the social interaction means that you
named (Social Preferencing, Honesty, and Anonymity) are always positive
to practice with Freemen. In the current society where a person may be
dealing with those who would Violate hir, they are definitely means that
should only be employed as appropriate so that one does not incur net
irreparable harm.

> The title "Anonymity – Hazard, Not Protection" [3] could have just as
> easily been "Automobile – Hazard, Not Transportation" or "Openness -
> Hazard, Not Pathway to Freedom and Liberty". Beginning with the title
> the paper misses the point that anonymity like automobiles is simply
> a tool.

I disagree. It is you who do not understand that the meaning of "hazard"
is more "chance of harm" than "definite harm":
2 a : an adverse chance (as of being lost, injured, or defeated) :
DANGER PERIL <the discovery of atomic fission brought into /hazard/
the industrial potential of any state which could not destroy its
enemy before it was itself destroyed -- H.J.Laski>
b : a thing or condition that might operate against success or safety
: a possible source of peril, danger, duress, or difficulty <a coast
visited by frequent dense fogs and mountains subject to violent storms
constitute /hazard//s /to air travel -- /American Guide Series:
California/>
c : a condition that tends to create or increase the possibility of loss
3 a : the effect of unpredictable, unplanned, and unanalyzable forces
in determining events : CHANCE <men and women danced together, women
danced together, men danced together, as /hazard/ had brought them
together -- Charles Dickens>
b : an event occurring without design, forethought, or direction :
ACCIDENT <looked like a fugitive, who had escaped from something in
clothes caught up at /hazard/ -- Willa Cather>

And besides, a title of an article, even more than an abstract of a
paper, is necessarily brief and may contain words that need further
explanation (which so many English words do and moreso as time goes on
and more and more of them are used in ways highly distorted from their
root meanings and original usages), which explanation is provided
within the text of the article.

> Anonymity, Automobile, and Openness can be used to harm others

This is incorrect both in principle and in degree, but the reason for
your error is because you do not yet understand the nature of "harm",
which is again because you have not yet read the NSC, its definitions
and its annotations. Neither the practice nor the non-practice of
anonymity and openness can cause Responsible Harm to anyone - any such
practice or non-practice cannot result in a Violation of anyone (except
if contrary to the requirements of some Valid Contract). However,
automobiles are Material Existents, which are fully capable of being
used as tools of Responsible Harm to others, whether intentionally,
accidentally or negligently.

> or to get away with harming others.

I am not sure what you mean by "get away with" here. Of course I know
the expression, but it is essentially describing an act of deceit and/or
subterfuge that it takes great pains to always notice, and then to place
squarely out in the open, just so that the perpetrator does *not* "get
away with" such an act. One important and beneficial (particularly for
others) kind of public social interaction is to never let a person
"get away with" anything!

> The usage of the tool must be the object that is considered hazardous
> or not.

Again you misunderstand the meaning of "hazardous". Rather it should be
replaced above by "harmful".

> An automobile is not a hazard. An intoxicated driver behind
> the wheel of a car is a hazard.

Again this is a false difference. There are many people who I would
rather have drive by me in an intoxicated state than have many others
drive by me completely sober. Both are potentially but not necessarily
harmful to persons or property near them.

> [3] Anonymity - Hazard, Not Protection; Limitation, not Enhancement,
> Author: Paul Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/anonymity.html
>
> [Correction:
> Kitty was the sole author of the article "Anonymity - Hazard not
> Protection".
> As explained on the index page of the "Focus on Freedom" section and
> previously in this discussion: "The articles in this section are
> written by Kitty Antonik Wakfer, and where indicated by Paul Antonik
> Wakfer". --Paul]
>
> Reviewer, Chad Nelson
>
> [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]

--Paul