On 06/23/2009 10:51 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> --- 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.

If that is the case then you are doing a very poor and incomplete job.
What you are doing is no more than anyone does who comments very
selectively without reading related material. What I did in my comments
on the Mises.org article that attracted you was *much* more of a review
of that article than what you have done here so far. However, I did
not sign myself as "Reviewer", mainly because I consider that doing so
could reasonably be taken as pretentious.

[I have never seen any commenter to an article at mises.org or any other
website/blog close their posted entry regarding an article/essay or the
website in general with "Reviewer, John Doe" or "Jane Doe, Reviewer".
**Kitty]

> Calling myself what I am is only natural.

You are confusing "describing" yourself with "titling" yourself.
*Describing* yourself as a reviewer would be okay *if* you actually
were doing a real review. However, you are "titling" yourself as a
"reviewer" which is not the same thing at all. Most titles are not
granted to oneself (except by narcissistic people), but rather are
granted by others to a person. Even the title "Owner" is taken because
others have accepted the claim of ownership of the person using it,
thereby granting hir the use of such a title. You might also find it
instructive to google "referring to oneself in the third person" and
"titling" oneself, and read some of the hits.

> I reviewed this document. Therefore, I am a reviewer.

You are not a reviewer accurately in "description" because of your
selectivity and misunderstandings. You are not a reviewer in "title"
because others have not granted you the privilege to call yourself a
reviewer of the SelfSIP writings.

> Paul you know who I am. There is no deception, trickery,
> or subterfuge.

The "subterfuge", (not the best adjective, "pretense" or even
"imposture" would be better), involved does not relate to your identity,
but rather to your assumption of unentitled status and position.

It would be like if I put PhD after my name when I never completed
either of my PhD efforts. Although I am entitled to call myself
Professor Wakfer, since I was given that rank by the University of
Toronto, I have no desire to use it since I wish to persuade only by
logic and reason rather than by any academic or authority status. Even
those many people who sign themselves PhD (ABD) are being pretentious,
because they have not completed their PhD (ABD means "all but
dissertation"). I could truthfully put that twice after my name, but I
purposefully do not.

[Interestingly, all postal mail to Paul from the University of
Toronto, comes addressed to Professor David Paul Wakfer. They continue
to use that title even though Paul has never requested it. **Kitty]

> Now whether my reviews are useful is a matter up for debate.

Yes, but that is a totally independent and separable matter.

>>> 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.

No word should ever be used "loosely", particularly when it has such
power to cloud minds with faulty notions. But certainly this can be
done inadvertently - my writing is not without such incorrect usages,
although almost never anymore with the first person plural.

[A careful reading of Paul's essay, "Collectivism in Language:
Its Effects on Valid Reasoning", is highly recommended.
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html **Kitty]

> This is a micro- not macro- approach. I agree
> that macro-level planning fails.

I think that both "micro-" and "macro-" do not adequately describe the
stabilizing feedback of cooperating elements of a System causing optimal
self-order as measured by the lifetime happiness metric. But perhaps
they are appropriate to describe some parts of the whole effect.

> 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.

The above is all correct, but irrelevant to your usage of "we" above.
Please see the definition of "System" in the Natural Social Contract,
of which a "Society" is a subtype.

>> /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.

If you are saying that the detailed operations of a society needs to be
worked out and described fully enough so that one can be assured that
living in it will more enable a person to increase hir lifetime
happiness than living in the current society, *before* one starts
attempting to create such a society, then I could not agree more. But
that would simply be stating what I have already emphasized dozens of
places in my writing and specifically on SelfSIP.org.

If you are saying that "I" (the "you" in your sentence above) or even
people in general thinking of such a future society (replacing "you" in
your sentence with "one") need to determine beforehand the stability
parameters of a society, then you are incorrect on both counts. The
society will determine its own state of stability by means of the
rational interactions of its members, just as such cooperative feedback
mechanisms will determine all other parameters of that System as a
whole. This will happen in exactly the same way that participants in a
fully free market, jointly by their market actions alone, determine
the relative amounts of goods and services that are produced. No
"external" determination is needed, wanted or effective. This is why I
have stated that I have effectively extended the ideas and methods of
praxeology to social systems.

[I do not think that it is conducive to optimal written exchange,
especially on substantive matters, for a person to write simply the word
"Disagree" after the conclusion of a moderate sized paragraph composed
by someone else. Even the the following single sentence does not make it
at all clear to what of all Paul wrote Chad is disagreeing. It promotes
confusion and waste of time for readers to have to try to decipher what
Chad means. Perhaps he is saying that only the direction is "crucial"
and the actual goal is superfluous. But how specific or loose can the
"direction" be "to point" when the goal/object is not known? **Kitty]

> It would be inappropriate to arbitrarily
> assert that X property violations / year should be the goal.

And where do you get the idea that any such thing is planned or even
mentioned? Yes that or anything like it would be totally inappropriate
for anyone to attempt to "set" a priori. Self-ordering systems simply
do not work that way. That method is only used by social planners.

> Rather
> the goal is to establish a community that reduces the likelihood of
> property violations.

Of course - otherwise the goal of optimally increasing one's lifetime
happiness would not be attainable for all. In fact, that likelihood
should be reduced to near zero (and then only accidents) or else the
social ordering methods are not yet optimal. And even more, the
asymptotic goal for actual occurrence of all violations should always
be zero (for a more detailed explanation see below).

> 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.

Any rational person will determine that the only *acceptable* rate is
*zero*. Yes, this ideal will be impossible to reach, but nothing less
should ever be held to be acceptable. Otherwise, one will no longer be
trying to optimize one's rate of increase of lifetime happiness - which
lack would be irrational by definition. You need to start thinking of
the idea of asymptotically approaching ideal goals that are only ideal
because of the vagaries of chance, and can in reality be approached as
closely as one wishes given sufficient time, effort and knowledge.
Unbounded lifespans are one such ideal. Certainly no one will ever live
forever. However, given enough time, knowledge and effort, eventually
there will be no clear upper bound to the length of a human's lifespan.

> It should also be mentioned that while each individual has their own
> unique threshold generalizations can be made about a group of
> individuals.

Meta
It is mentally and subconsciously distortional to clear and logical
thought to use the clearly plural "their" as a third person singular
pronoun (and I don't care how many websites are now doing this nor how
many English profs and editors are recommending it - the determination
of validity is not a democratic process). If you want to use a gender
neutral pronoun then use "s/he" in writing and "he or she" in speaking.
For the objective or possessive form in writing use "hir" or "hirs".
/Meta

> 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.

Since you cannot possibly "know" most people who shop at Wal-Mart, the
latter part of your last statement cannot be correct. This is separate
from the first part of that sentence which I also doubt, since Wal-Mart
is far too complex an operation for you to adequately "know" what it does.

[All that most people know about a company is what it sells - product(s)
or service(s), and then most times not all types. Very few people know
all that a company (or even a sole proprietor) "does" in order to make
those products/services available to others. Only a person who has
been in a broad managerial position of a similar company has a fairly
strong understanding of what is involved.
As regards "why" people "like" a specific company, this requires a
well-constructed survey in order to provide meaningful data. In the
absence of such data, one can only claim conjecture, as to why people
shop at a particular establishment, and not knowledge. **Kitty]

>>> 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.

Of course. That is the program of getting from here to there. However,
just calling the destination society a "free community" is not at all
helpful since every individual will have a different interpretation of
what that means. A clear and precise definition of the meaning and
operations of a "free community" is exactly what the theory of Social
Meta-Needs, the Natural Social Contract and Social Preferencing
jointly accomplish.

As far as "providing an environment" to promote the establishment of a
Freemen Society, or at least some stepping stones in that direction,
that is the purpose of promoting Social Preferencing, non-anonymity
and the personal responsibility enhancement of value for value
exchange methods. Your idea of helping such people find kindred
spirits can greatly aid this provision of an environment enabling
positive change.

[Again, I consider Chad's submitted "review" of the Social Meta-Needs
theory essay in regards to "achieving stability" as highly premature. He
has admittedly read none of the NSC (and their annotations) prior to the
the latest group of postings and has a limited understanding of Social
Preferencing - the twin frameworks of Social Meta-Needs. Were he to be
asking questions, in this case as to how stability would be achieved, it
would be far more conducive to the discussion and eliminate the need
to address numerous both faulty assumptions and incorrect conclusions.
Yes, one properly should be reviewing/studying a technical document and
not simply reading it as one does a novel, if the purpose is to truly
understand the contents and assess it against one's currently held ideas
of reality. This entails making notes of comments and questions for
oneself and possibly the author or other natural authority on the
subject upon completion of the reading or at least a major portion,
especially if one is confused by or in disagreement with
conclusions/recommendations by the author. **Kitty]

>> 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.

What you are missing is the highly important *reality* of human
characteristics, requirements and the consequent behaviors needed to
achieve the human lifetime happiness purpose. An optimal social system
is not merely what its members "need in order to satisfy themselves",
because that sort of direct approach simply won't achieve its purpose.

> When the term stability is used it should not be assumed that it means
> calmness or a lack of perturbation.

Stability normally means a small relative change of the parameters
characterizing the point of stability of a system from their average
values. Calmness of water would be stability of water, as opposed to
very high waves.

> It means what the individuals inside of the environment want it to mean.

I don't say this very often, but that *is* just plain silly. If you
applied that to all words then meaning itself would disappear. And how
on earth would you get everyone to agree anyway?
Furthermore, the current society is already a society in which the level
of stability is what its members want (if that is what you mean by
"want it to mean". The problem is that the vast majority of the
members of current societies do not understand that something better
can be done and particularly do not understand how to do it.

> The point is that a
> formula for successful implementation of such a social structure is
> possible.

What "social structure" are you talking about here? You have as yet
only the vaguest idea just what my proposed social structure really
is, so I do not see how you can yet reasonably think that it 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.

Your irrelevant metaphors are totally inapplicable and useless. You
have been demonstrating a significant lack of understanding of the
essentials of an appropriate metaphor. Additionally, you do not appear
to understand that metaphors do not prove anything and have limited
explanatory value (none if they are not a good isomorphism to the
original).

> Pay me to live in a stable place where you get to rule
> yourself within the bounds of a voluntary social contract.

The above makes absolutely no sense to me.

[I don't understand it either. **Kitty]

> 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?

Neither. First of all must come the understandings of the meanings of
Freedom and Liberty (remember that these are not equivalent, as I have
explained in the NSC and its annotation for their definitions). Next
must come a detailed explanation of why these are desirable (necessary
for optimal lifetime happiness to be possible) rather than merely
desiring *security* of person/property/income. Only then can a desire
for them be formulated and only then can an environment where they
will be maximized be determined and sought to be attained.

> Which comes first the desire for a decent
> quality product at a cheap price or Wal-Mart? I assert that the two
> are interlinked.

Ignoring your inappropriate Wal-Mart metaphor, the *desire* for freedom
and liberty is only linked to the environment providing it for those
people who do not have sufficient imagination. I seek those who do have
sufficient imagination.

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

It is good that you say so, but I am yet to be convinced.

--Paul