--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> > As an observation related to my composing of this message, I note that I
> > am now sitting down to develop my reply to this message after several
> > days has passed during which I have not done so. Now that I have not
> > read the content of this message in several days, I notice that many
> > of the things I had typed do not accurately communicate what I had
> > initially wanted them to. I think Paul recently brought this idea up
> > to Olafur in a private message as a recommendation of how one might
> > proofread one's own writings. The method Paul described was that when
> > one takes a break from writing a message and comes back to it after
> > some time, one will interpret the initial message much like a person
> > who has never read it.
> >
> > This enables the author to be an effective editor of hir
> > own work, and in my case with this message, I find this to be true.
> > However, it is also true that the amount of time required between
> > writing periods may delay the message (as it has done for this message).
> >
>
> Meta
> Actually, since the above comment was *about* the message and composing
> it, it should have been enclosed in Meta tags. Then my reply comment
> below would have been placed within within those Meta tags. And this
> Meta comment would have been in another set of Meta tags inside the
> other. As it is, because this is a comment *about* that portion of the
> message, I have placed it in Meta tags.

I did not realize that a Meta tag should be used when commenting about
the nature of composition of a message. Since this comment is directly
related to your Meta comment above, I have placed it here, within your
Meta tag. I will keep this Meta tag in mind and try to use it the next
time I have such a comment.

> /Meta
>
> And I have been delayed with this reply because of wiki website work.
>
> >
> >> Re: Subjectivity of preferences, happiness, and evaluating habits
> >>
> >> On 02/20/2009 09:37 AM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>> The following is a comment from Kitty to me in a private email
> >>> regarding the evaluation of a purchase made by someone else.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> When I do think of another's expenditures that I would not make, I
> >>>> often then give a few minutes to consider why that person has made
> >>>> that purchase (or made that choice if it does not apply directly to
> >>>> a purchased item) - what is s/he deriving from it? There are many
> >>>> possibilities when one doesn't know the other person well and the
> >>>> better hir characteristics are known, the more likely one or two of
> >>>> the numerous possibilities selected are the actual case.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Good point Kitty. I have been trying recently to emphasize the
> >>> subjectivity that is inherent in decisions, values, preferences, and
> >>> choices of activities for enjoyment. I think for the past few years I
> >>> have tried to discover "the one right way" of behaving, from an
> >>> objective perspective. However, it is becoming increasingly evident to
> >>> me that one's previous positive experiences are a large cause of what
> >>> makes things enjoyable in the present.
> >>>
> >> This is entirely reasonable. It is a normal aspect of learning through
> >> experience present in all animals. However, humans have mental faculties
> >> that enable them to analyze any experience in terms of both its short
> >> and long range aspects, including analyzing just why it is "felt" to
> >> be a positive experience. After such analysis, if one sees that the
> >> experience (and the emotion about it) is *not* beneficial because the
> >> events of the experience are actually *not* going to optimally increase
> >> one's lifetime happiness, then the emotional reaction to that kind of
> >> experience needs to be modified accordingly (the emotion is not
> >> consistent with one's rationally held analysis of one's life and
> >> therefore is actually harmful to continue having - because it distorts
> >> rational decision making).
> >>
> >>
> >>> At the same time, I understand
> >>> that new, positive experiences related to "better" habits can be
> >>> nurtured. This is a cause of some recent frustration for me: which
> >>> subjective preferences are "bad" and which are "good"? That is, which
> >>> preferences or behaviors should be replaced with different ones? When
> >>> one determines that a behavior needs replacing, one must ask: "with
> >>> what do I replace it ?"
> >>>
> >> There are several things here.
> >> A subjective preference is not the same thing as an emotional response
> >> to some experience (set of events). A subjective preference should be
> >> the rational result of your analysis of the contribution to your
> >> lifetime happiness of "whatever" it is that you are preferencing.
> >>
> > I am still having difficulty distinguishing between preferences and
> > emotional responses. In the way I was thinking of them prior to your
> > reply, I had confused the two ideas. I thought that subjective
> > preferences were based on prior experiences which have a positive or
> > negative aspect to them. In other words, I was thinking of subjective
> > preferences as emotional responses that have yet to be analyzed and
> > rationalized that come from past experiences associated with that
> > behavior/action/situation.
>
> Your statement is *almost* correct. Most certainly initial preferences
> (all preferences are subjective!) come from past experiences. And the
> learning experiences during one's development directly cause all one's
> initial preferences. Besides some contribution from one's genetic
> makeup, there is simply no other source for those preferences. However,
> I think that it is important to clearly distinguish between an emotion
> (a conscious result of wholly *subconscious* "evaluations") and a
> preference (a conscious choice and action).

I now understand the important distinction between emotional responses
and preferences. The difference that stood out to me was the fact that
emotional responses are *subconscious evaluations* and preferences are
*conscious choices*. This now makes sense to me, and I agree.

> >> Once that analysis and decision is done and the "whatever" is found
> >> to contribute to increasing your lifetime happiness, you should
> >> automatically begin to have positive emotions in proportion to such
> >> contribution, whenever that "whatever" occurs.
> >
> > The skill of evaluating my preferences and the effect of each on my
> > lifetime happiness is something that I am trying to develop further. For
> > example, there are certain types of musics, or specific songs, that will
> > predictably change my mood to a certain positive state (i.e. relaxed
> > or happy). Only recently have I began to make a connection between the
> > changes in my level of happiness and the activities I participate in.
> > Well, of course it would be difficult to *ignore* the effect of
> > activities on one's mood, but it is relatively recently that I have made
> > an effort to pay special attention to these connections so that I can
> > better understand them and actively seek out those happiness-increasing
> > activities.
>
> Such "noticing" is, of course the necessary first step prior to making
> connections and understanding, so it is good that you are increasing
> your ability to introspectively notice your states of mind and their
> possible meanings.
>
> [I have done a lot of this noticing in the past couple of years and
> comparing them to emotional levels I experienced in the years prior to
> about 2005. I think it took about 4.5 years with Paul to come to
> understand myself much better than ever before so the most marked
> upward change in my *overall* happiness state has been from about that
> point. And I fairly often note to myself how different my general mood
> is from what it was prior to the beginning of 2000. I don't remember
> doing this kind of "inventory" consciously during the years of my
> previous relationships, but I can easily look back and recall my mood,
> which was most very one I would now loosely term a low-level anxiety. **Kitty]

Kitty, it is encouraging to hear that you recall a relatively recent
improvement in your ability to notice your emotional state and
possible causes for it. I admit that, when writing this message, I
felt a bit as though I might be one of only a few people who
experienced this.

> > What I describe next may sound strange to some readers. However, I
> > think that many young people may be experiencing this same situation,
> > so I wanted to discuss it here so that others may relate to it. I know
> > of at least one person around my age who has told me she has developed
> > very similar habits with regard to how she considers her state of
> > happiness. One problem I think I am struggling with is that I repeatedly
> > ignore, or fail to recognize, the effect of some experiences on my
> > happiness. I think I have developed this problem from incorporating the
> > idea of "biting the bullet". This phrase might be described as "doing
> > the activities one is taught 'should' be done, regardless of whether
> > the activities contribute positively to one's happiness". Through much
> > of my life so far I have participated in the activities that I learned
> > "should" be done, such as getting a college degree. Which activities
> > *should* be done was determined by people other than myself, such as
> > parents and family. I think that when I was younger (from the ages of
> > 10-20), I wanted to be a "good" son to my parents, and thus performed
> > those activities that would make them proud of me. Because some of
> > these activities were not very enjoyable to me, I learned to ignore my
> > state of happiness with regard to a given activity, so I could complete
> > the project successfully without my negative thoughts of the task
> > interfering with my performance.
>
> There is always a limit to which one can ignore the negatives of a task
> and still effectively accomplish it and most minds will not allow such
> inconsistencies with reality to continue without some negative effects
> on health and longevity. This is because such "ignoring" means that one
> is incorrectly evaluating the total effect on one's lifetime happiness.
>
> > One example of this is when one works
> > at a job one does not particularly enjoy, but does so because s/he has
> > few alternatives. From working at a series of projects with this
> > perspective, I had learned to think "I must finish the current activity,
> > regardless of my feelings for it". I know now that this way of thinking
> > and acting is irrational and harmful, and I am making progress in
> > changing it.
>
> Excellent!
>
> >> With respect to experiences to which you have positive emotions and
> >> after analysis you now have a much lower subjective preference, what you
> >> then need do is to modify your emotional response to that experience
> >> so that it is proportional to that new subject preference. I have in
> >> previous messages gone over how such emotional "modification" is
> >> accomplished (similar to changing a habit).
> >>
> > Right. I agree with the above. I discuss this more below, but first I
> > will define and give examples of my thoughts about my "neutral
> > preferences". I define "neutral preference" as a disposition toward an
> > action or adopting/preferring some aspect of reality that is "neutral"
> > with regard to one's lifetime happiness. Some examples of a neutral
> > preference (for me) are: my preference for having facial hair, my
> > preference for maintaining a shaved head, and my preference for certain
> > video games as a form of mental stimulation.
>
> In thinking of these as "neutral", you are guilty of the logical fallacy
> of isolation of a choice or action from *all* of its surrounding harms
> and benefits (similar to the broken window fallacy made famous by
> Bastiat and elucidated superbly by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics
> in One Lesson").

I remember reading Hazlitt's account of this.

> In fact, a rational preference choice or action can
> never be actually neutral (in the sense of neither increasing nor
> decreasing one's lifetime happiness) since there is always some choice that
> one at least evaluates will cause one's lifetime happiness to not
> decrease.

If I'm understanding the above correctly, you saying that "a rational
preference choice or action can never be neutral because there is
always some other action or choice that would be more effective in
increasing one's lifetime happiness". Is this correct? In other words,
there is always an opportunity cost in choosing one action or behavior
preference?

> In thoughtfully considering my previous statement it is
> imperative to remember that lifetime happiness is *not* the happiness up
> to this point or even the happiness up to right after your next action.
> Rather it is the estimated happiness that will be obtained for the
> entire time of your life into the indefinite future (which, since you
> cannot change the past, is actually the same as the accumulated total
> happiness over the rest of your life).

I think I understand this concept well. Although it *is* sometimes
difficult for me to put the effects of decisions into such a
far-reaching context. I *do* frequently try, though.

> > All three of the above examples I periodically re-evaluate with regard
> > to my lifetime happiness. My frustration is that each of these
> > preferences of mine have positive and negative aspects to them,
>
> I have news for you. *Every* choice and action has both positive and
> negative aspects to it, even if the negative is only that the time taken
> to evaluate and do it cannot be spent evaluating other choices and
> taking other actions. I face that dilemma every day. I have so many
> things that I want to do, but only have time to do some of them.

Yes, I face this everyday and it is frustrating to me that I sometimes
spend too much time *evaluating* my choices and too little time
*doing* anything.

> I
> constantly wish that I could duplicate myself dozens of times over in
> order to be able to have all my goals accomplished.

It is often that I also feel like this. In fact, I was just doing some
thinking about this last night, trying to put my time limitations into
perspective, so I can better adjust to the fact that I have such
limitations.

> > which causes me to be ambivalent regarding my preference for them. For
> > example, I prefer the look of my face having facial hair, compared to
> > not having facial hair. However, I know that many people do not like
> > facial hair, and many employers insist on employees not having facial
> > hair. So I ask myself if the negative preferencing I will experience
> > outweighs my enjoyment of having facial hair.
>
> This is the wrong approach. Negative preferencing by others says far
> more about them than it does about you. It can be used by you as a great
> tool for your own preferencing actions regarding the degree to which you
> want to relate to others. Do you really want to work for someone or
> associate much with someone who has that view of what your appearance
> ought to be?

This is a good point. No, I do not want to work for, or associate
with, someone who has the view that they should control my appearance.
However, in my experience, *many* employers have this requirement of
conforming to what they call a "dress code", which includes both the
clothes one wears and the facial hair one maintains. I see two
opposing points on this subject. First, I have found it difficult to
find employment while having facial hair. Since employment has been
the best way by which to provide me with my needs, I have felt that I
have little choice but to conform to their demands regarding my
appearance. OTOH, it is true that *not all* employers (and more
narrowly, not even every employer looking for people with skills that
I possess), require such alterations to my appearance. So, by
conforming to the appearance requirements of some employers, I was
actually supporting their effort to dictate my appearance (and the
appearance of others). If I had more actively sought-out an employer
that did not have such appearance requirements, I would be supporting
*them* by providing *them* with my skills and services, rather than
the employer who required a change to my appearance. However, it
almost certainly would have been more difficult for me to find
employment, had I not compromised on my appearance.

> > Both of these positive and negative aspects are small, since this
> > preference is not critical to my life happiness.
>
> It could be so critical if it prevented you from being able to interact
> sufficiently with others that you could not gain the necessities of
> life.

I have been concerned with this, regarding facial hair, as I discuss
above.

> And this is merely with regard to others simply refusing to deal
> with you. It says nothing about the possibility of others actually
> perpetrating physical harm because of some trait that you have or action
> that you take that is of no physical harm to anyone else (as happens
> all the time in less socially advanced countries).

Yes, this is a frightening thought, but I understand it to be true.

> > But I do periodically re-evaluate this cost/benefit
> > situation *and it is this re-evaluation* that is frustrating. It is
> > frustrating because I think doing so is a nonsensical waste of my time.
> > I don't know why I can't just confidently conclude: "this is my
> > preference. There is no harm being done to me for having this
> > preference, and I enjoy this preference," and proceed to enjoy it,
> > without periodically re-evaluating it. I have also come to think that I
> > place too much value on the opinions others hold regarding these neutral
> > preferences. If I essentially concluded: "I don't care what others
> > think", then I would not re-evaluate these seemingly neutral
> > preferences. However, what other people think about me is an important
> > aspect of life which affects my happiness.  I will continue to think
> > about this.
>
> What you are missing is that the importance of what others think about
> you should be directly proportional to your overall evaluation of the
> benefit to your lifetime happiness of interactions with them.

Your statement above makes sense to me, and I agree. However, I had
never put others' opinions about me in such a long-term perspective. I
think if I did this, I would, in general, not be so concerned with the
opinions of others, since I would realize what little effect most
peoples' opinions about me will have on my lifetime happiness.

> It is
> only rational to highly value the opinions (subjective evaluations) of
> those for whom you have an overall high value for the purpose of
> interaction. Generally this is because the thoughts and evaluations of
> those people will generally be more logical and more compatible to
> your own subjective preferences than are the evaluations of the
> others.
> (Note: I have made this evaluation of others here only relate to their
> benefit to you for the purposes of interaction, precisely because you
> were specifically discussing the reactions to you of others with whom
> you are relating. This is quite different than one's evaluation of the
> statements of someone knowledgeable with whom one does not relate.)

I acknowledge the distinction.

> So it is not correct to go from great caring about the opinions of
> others to not caring at all.

Right, one should evaluate the *degree* to which one should care about
the opinion of another. This sounds correct.

> In the end, the degree of caring for
> others and their opinions about your actions are both integral parts
> of the evaluation of the contribution of that action toward your
> lifetime happiness. However, it is also important to use all actions
> and all reactions of others towards you as tools by which to
> continually reevaluate your measure of their worth to you.
>
> > Some of my frustration is that not all preferences are highly positive
> > or highly negative. Some of them are relatively neutral with respect to
> > my long-term happiness. However, I think I tend to re-evaluate these
> > preferences that are neutral with regard to my happiness, and this
> > re-evaluation is cumbersome. I think I do this because when a preference
> > is neutral I find it difficult to conclude: "it is neutral, and
> > therefore does not matter, so I no longer need to evaluate it". I think
> > I need to learn to just *accept* these neutral preferences and
> > confidently conclude that they *are* in-fact, neutral, and I can spend
> > my time thinking about other things.
>
> It is clear now that by "neutral" you actually mean that taking an
> action or not taking it will make little difference to your total
> lifetime happiness.

Correct. This is what I meant.

> Again what I think that you are missing is that
> most of life's actions are actually of that form. The lives of most
> people consist of a majority of actions each of which contribute a
> small amount to their lifetime happiness (only minimally more than
> some alternate action) and a very few actions that either increase or
> decrease their lifetime happiness a great deal.

I hadn't thought of this, previous to your pointing it out.

> But you are correct
> that it is not time well spent (ie not conducive to your lifetime
> happiness) to dwell on actions that can only possibly have a minor
> effect on your lifetime happiness. My approach to such minor things
> (most actions) is to make them into habits that I only occasionally
> reconsider - generally when something brings it to my attention.

This seems like an effective way to reduce the amount of time required
by such small decisions.

> >> There is no need to always have something with which to replace a
> >> "whatever" that you decide is not as valuable as you formerly thought
> >> (or more correctly, "emoted") it was. Rather you can simply spend more
> >> time on "whatevers" that you already know you value highly and enjoy.
> >>
> >>> Furthermore, I have been frustrated in my attempts to make a distinction
> >>> between those preferences of mine that I derive enjoyment from that are
> >>> not harmful or destructive, with those that are harmful or destructive.
> >>> An easy way by which to make the distinction is to evaluate the
> >>> long-term implications of holding each preference. If the long-term
> >>> outcome of an attachment to a preference is negative, then one must do
> >>> one's best to eliminate that preference.
> >>>
> >> If it is negative, yes. But often one "whatever" is merely less
> >> beneficial than another "whatever", rather than being actually
> >> destructive/harmful.
> >>
> >> [In regards to food that is highly pleasurable tasting but is of
> >> little nutritious value, one need not entirely eliminate that food
> >> from one's intake, never partaking of it again. There are many
> >> desert-type foods of which I and Paul take a small amount on the
> >> infrequent occasions that we eat out. Since they are so rarely eaten,
> >> I can enjoy a bit then - the chocolate volcano cake (small amount) was
> >> one this past Thursday when we ate out on Paul's 71st birthday.
> >>
> >> For many of those we saw at the restaurant, it is clear that their
> >> eating practices are mostly harmful. **Kitty]
> >
> > Good point Kitty. I think it is wise to keep a longer-term perspective
> > on the "treat foods" that one only occasionally eats. One can eat these
> > "treat foods", which have high pleasure and low nutritious value, and
> > still be very healthy. It is the *frequency* with which one eats these
> > foods that determines whether eating them is unhealthy.
>
> Agreed, of course :)
>
> [It is probably more the combination of frequency *and* amount of the
> intake of low nutritional value food that can be detrimental to one's
> overall health. A *very* small amount of such food taken frequently
> (eg. every other day) will likely be of less harm (if any at all) than
> a generous serving (pig-out) once a month. The "trick" I need to keep
> in mind for myself is not to let those "very small" amounts get larger
> and more often. ;>) **Kitty]
>
> >>> One example of this is my habit of,
> >>> and preference for, lifting weights. I have regularly lifted weights
> >>> for most of my life. Doing so makes me feel good, physiologically.
> >>> For me, it has the effects of reducing stress, improving sleep,
> >>> increasing motivation for other activities, and some others.
> >>>
> >> These last benefits are related to the physical exercise and
> >> accomplishment aspects of lifting weights, and are all highly valuable
> >> results that you need to continue gaining. What you need to ask
> >> therefore, is "Is lifting weights the best overall way to gain such
> >> results?" - "Might there not be some other activities that will cause
> >> the same results and be beneficial in other ways also, or not have some
> >> of the detrimental effects of lifting weights?" You might ask yourself:
> >> "what am I doing with my mind while I am lifting weights?" - "Is that a
> >> valuable mental activity?" Perhaps you find lifting weights to be very
> >> mentally relaxing and good time for reflection and analysis of problems
> >> that you have been working on - as I do when taking a relaxing shower -
> >> at which I definitely take more time than I need in order get clean -
> >> which results in the negative effects of extra usage of my time, costs
> >> of water and electricity, but wrt which I long ago decided are
> >> worthwhile expenditures - ie the long showers give me a net gain of
> >> lifetime happiness. The result of this is that I do not think of the
> >> negatives of the longer showers, but only enjoy the whole in degree to
> >> the net sum of benefit.
> >
> > The above analysis is a good example of how one might analyze a given
> > preference for an activity, and I find the example useful. Your
> > comparison of the positive and negative aspects of long-duration showers
> > is one that looks familiar to me, as I have analyzed some behaviors of
> > my own in this same way. This leads me to think that it is not my
> > ability to reason effectively, but my lack of confidence in my
> > conclusions, that cause me to re-evaluate these behaviors too often. If
> > this is true, then I have a confidence problem, which fits with other
> > characteristics I have identified about myself.
>
> This is not something to be highly concerned about at your age. One
> generally gains more confidence about one's evaluations as one gets
> older and finds them to work out to one's benefit - after learning
> better just how to effectively introspect and really determine whether
> or not one has actually benefited.

This is very encouraging to read. I have been especially concerned
about my lack of confidence in some of my conclusions. However, when I
evaluated this lack of confidence, I concluded that I really have no
reason to be confident, since there are still (for me) so many aspects
to consider. Your explanation makes sense, in that, as I accumulate
more experience in evaluating whether I have benefited, my confidence
in estimating my future benefit from some action will grow.

> [And for me, I didn't learn how to have high confidence in myself (in
> areas outside of a narrow range of work expertise) until after being
> and "studying" with Paul for a few years. In fact, I think we were
> both "studying" during the first 5 years in slightly different areas
> areas of human interaction - and in actuality we continue to study
> this aspect of reality all the time.

I am very interested to know how you and Paul got into the habit of
"studying" together. When I consider the activities for which I'd like
to have a partner, *studying* is one of the activities that is
foremost in my mind. I enjoy learning about, contemplating, and
discussing reality, and one can only perform the latter if there is
someone to discuss ideas *with* (much like we are doing in this
forum). I think it's wonderful that Paul and Kitty each have a "study"
partner. Most of the people I meet in my daily interactions don't
think that "studying" is an enjoyable activity at all - which is
depressing.

> The various readings I've done in the past 8 years have been extremely
> helpful in improving my introspection and communication - some of the
> books/articles were a reread but many of them were new to me, most of
> which I've shared in various posts. **Kitty]
>
> > This is a little discouraging to me, as I know I have struggled with
> > this issue for a long time. However, one must identify a personality
> > issue properly before one can effectively and efficiently improve it.
>
> Absolutely. And having done so and "owned" it (to use Nathaniel
> Branden's great term), you are already past the most difficult part of
> the process.
>
> >>> In the past I have often
> >>> lifted weights with "lifting buddies", and our experience together
> >>> were enjoyable. Even now, when I lift weights alone, I often recall
> >>> these fond experiences of lifting weights with others.
> >>>
> >> Have you analyzed just *why* those experiences were "enjoyable" and
> >> whether there were valid reasons for them being enjoyable, in light of
> >> your new thinking? If you now find that the reasons for enjoyment were
> >> *not* valid, then you must logically quit thinking of them with
> >> enjoyment. There can be events in your past that you remember enjoying
> >> (the memory is still there and certainly should be, otherwise you are
> >> evading), but when you think of them now, it is with the thought of
> >> "what a stupid thing to do and to enjoy". I think likely everyone
> >> (at least every self-honest person) has such memories.
> >
> > This is a great question to ask Paul. I have considered this question
> > in regard to my positive weight lifting experiences with my lifting
> > buddies, and I concluded that I enjoyed the camaraderie and the fact
> > that others shared my goal of improving one's body composition and
> > overall health. I have also considered that this last may be a positive
> > aspect to me because I feel mostly alone in my dedicated effort to
> > constantly improve myself and my life.
>
> Well even though I and Kitty are rarely physically near you, you need
> no longer consider that you are alone, since we are with you in our
> thoughts and our encouragements whenever you need us.

Reading the above line compelled me to smile quite happily. I
appreciate your encouragement. :)

> I can say that
> unequivocally, precisely because I know that your sense of responsibility
> will not allow you to abuse our time (ie. seek to gain more of our time
> than value that you return for it).

Right. I frequently consider value-for-value with regard to your (or
anyone's) time.

> Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
> whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
> not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
> and having her physically with me most of the time.

I had thought this to be the case: that the constant, physical
presence of a certain person could make a large difference in my
happiness. I'm glad to hear that you have experienced this, which
helps to support my hypothesis. Note, I understand it is not simply
the other person's physical presence that brings benefit, but also the
fact that hir physical presence enables easier communication and a
wider range of activities that can be done together, relative to the
lack of hir physical presence.

> [I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.

I have been trying to discover why I get a bit depressed and feel
relatively unmotivated for a period of a day or two about once per
month. After having considered vitamin deficiencies (i.e. vitamin D
supplementation), lack of exercise, and some other possible causes, I
think that my lack of close friendship may be a large part of the cause.

> My level of productive output is far greater since joining with Paul
> than in the years prior. I think that it is essential for optimizing
> one's lifetime happiness that a person have at least one relationship
> with another human that has foundational values in common as well as
> numerous other interests (lesser values); it may not include
> romantic (sexual) emotions but these may be almost an "automatic"
> consequence of the breadth and depth of the values that each finds in
> the other. **Kitty]

The above really is wonderful to read, as it illustrates what I have
to look forward to, should I find the right person for me.

> > So I think I found my social
> > weightlifting experiences encouraging that people other than myself
> > have a desire to grow and improve. My weightlifting buddies and I also
> > learned a lot from one another about weight lifting, health, and
> > exercise physiology, as each of us were interested in improving
> > different aspects of our bodies. So we had the opportunity to share our
> > knowledge with one another - an activity I found enjoyable. However,
> > my goals for "muscle-development" are now much lower than theirs, as I
> > think I am at a satisfactory level in this regard. This means that I
> > do not require the amount of weight, or the number of weightlifting
> > sessions per week, to reach my goals, as they do. Therefore, I have
> > spent a greatly decreased amount of time with my weightlifting buddies
> > in the last six months, since our once-shared goals have mostly diverged.
>
> I see the above as all entirely reasonable. My expression for this is
> that you had a "tiny perfect" relationship with these individuals for a
> beneficial period of time that has now ended.

Yes, I agree.

> What you need now is to
> find one or more other groups of people with whom to have such tiny
> perfect relationships.

After reading the above, I think about the relationship I have with
two women from my Organic Chemistry 2 class. I have studied with the
two of them throughout this semester, and found it enjoyable at first.
However, I found that most of the time I spent with them was
unproductive with regard to studying the material. Instead, we would
often talk about other topics, some I found to be a waste of my time
(like the color one girl painted her toenails), while others were more
interesting (such as the difficulty in discovering what type of skills
one would enjoy to make a living).

> For example we have such relationships with our
> dance/music friends, but with most of them nothing beyond that. And with
> Jack (who is the only poster to this group who is "local" to us) we do
> not have a dance/music relationship but have several others of a deeper
> nature. Tiny perfect relationships are what you have with store clerks
> whom you get to know from frequenting certain stores and from others
> with whom your daily activities brings you into contact. I do not go
> so far as to call any of them "buddies" (I think associates would be a
> better term or even simply friends) ,

I thought you had previously discouraged the use of the word "friends"
for those with which one has a limited relationship with. I agreed
with this idea.

> I have had few buddies in my
> lifetime and only one or two best buddies - none of the latter except
> Kitty have ever remained in that status.

I have always thought of the word "buddy" as the casual term for
friend. It defines someone who is not a deep friend, but is also not
simply an "acquaintance". Merriam-Webster seems to indicate both
definitions (yours and mine):

1 a: companion , partner b: friend
2: fellow —used especially in informal address

> [I would very much like to see more of our dance friends - a couple of
> whom I know are members of MoreLife Yahoo but have never posted...-
> deepen their understanding of the philosophical issues underlying
> their frequently expressed dissatisfaction with current society. Most
> are well aware that SelfSIP.org exists, but I do not think that very
> many of them have even perused it, let alone studied it. So until they
> do and begin having serious discussions with us (as does one
> individual in person at most of the desert dance events) on the
> principles that make up that website and MoreLife, we remain in a
> tiny-perfect relationship.
>
> And as for retaining deep friendships over time, I think that those
> that I and Paul have made in the past few years - yours being one of
> the few - have happened almost certainly *because* of the philosophical
> foundational basis that we have developed.

Yes, I am very interested in the ideas, and I have found use for them
(by being convinced of their accuracy) as I continuously modify my
perception of reality. And the more I become convinced of the accuracy
of these ideas with respect to reality, the more active I become in
trying to influence others in considering such ideas. When trying to
discuss ideas of importance to one's existence (i.e. happiness,
value-for-value), I frequently get the impression that many people are
a type of "zombie" - aimlessly roaming about their lives, applying no
serious thought to their existence and living only to enjoy the next
escapist activity ("escapist" is a great way to describe it - Kitty
uses the word below).

> Such a basis is something
> that is missing currently in most relationships between people,

Yes! I have also found this to be the case. It seems that nearly every
person I interact with during my daily activities (and nearly everyone
previously in my life) lacks a rational, philosophical basis for their
existence. Rarely do I ever find a person who seems to have considered
the meaning or purpose of their existence, let alone a person who
thinks in the same ways as I do. It is difficult to have a close
relationship with someone if they do not think about their life to the
same degree, or in the same ways, as I do.

> but
> then for the very large numbers of people who never think beyond the
> escapist activity for after work or the weekend, the longer term
> friendships they maintain do not go very deep either. **Kitty]

Agreed. And I think it quite possible that it is largely because the
friendships they maintain have no philosophical basis, as you
describe.

I wonder if many organized religions (I'm thinking of Christianity)
serve this purpose for many people - providing a philosophical basis
around which people interpret their lives and give meaning to their
relationships.

> >> [There is another way to consider memories that elicit pleasant
> >> thoughts about those previous times that include people for whom you
> >> now have little in common as a result of your changed views on what is
> >> important to you. As an example, I have personally found this to be
> >> the case for numerous people, including ones to whom I am biologically
> >> related. I still have very pleasant memories from many years ago, but
> >> I have no desire to interact with these individuals now based on their
> >> later - and even in some cases fairly recent - demonstrations of
> >> values that are diametrically opposed to mine. One individual has even
> >> clearly expressed a wish that I be harmed, but I still have many fond
> >> memories of him that cover about 23 years. In contrast, I spend
> >> virtually no time wishing that he, as well as the others, were
> >> different since that is a waste of my time. **Kitty]
> >
> > I think it is an excellent conclusion you have come to - that it is a
> > waste of your time to wish that these people were different. There are a
> > couple people in my life whom I occasionally think about, and I think it
> > is a waste of my time to do so. Again, I have a difficult time holding a
> > firm conclusion about these people, and sometimes contact them to see
> > how they are doing or to influence them.
>
> You might instead realize that if they really had changed/improved, then
> they would contact you (as long as you have made yourself publicly
> available), and *that* is why it is a waste of your time.

This *is* a good point: if a person had really changed "for the
better", they would be motivated to contact me again. OTOH ("on the
other hand", for those unfamiliar with this acronym), I think there
are some people who are interested in changing/improving, but need
encouragement to do so. These are the types of people I am inclined to
want to "check-up on". On the contrary, I know of some people who have
convinced me that they are *unwilling* to change/improve, and these
people I make no effort to contact.

> This is my
> approach to my sister and my daughter both of whom totally severed
> relations with me about 8 years ago.
>
> [Ah, yes. Then there is the relationship with my son Andy (who goes by
> the name Andrew, although it is actually Edward Andreas), and also
> with his father and my former husband, Ed. Sometime in the future I
> will have a Kitty Reflects entry that addresses this situation, which
> is one where both those individuals have severed relations with me. **Kitty]

I am interested in reading about this Kitty Reflects entry that you
describe above. I often wonder if *I* will be the one to sever
relations with most of my family, or *them*. I don't know if it is
necessary for me to formally "sever" relations with my family.
Instead, I would simply not interact with them. I think this would be
the best thing to do with most people, since there is always the
possibility that they will change, at which point I would *want* to
speak with them again. But, if I had stopped initiating interaction
with a person because I decided that hir characteristics did not
benefit me, then I would wait for *them* to initiate interaction with
me, as it may be an indication that they've changed (similar to the
discussion on this above).

> > Perhaps a better behavior would
> > be to: when I have this desire to ask about them, I should instead
> > decide to make an effort to meet someone new instead. This would enable
> > me to get to know someone new and possibly interesting, rather than
> > continuing to interact with the same people that have repeatedly
> > disappointed me in the past. This seems like a healthy habit with regard
> > to reducing the amount of time wasted on disappointing people, while
> > increasing the frequency with which I meet new people - both positive
> > changes for me.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> >> [However, I also have
> >> hundreds of photos (almost all neatly in albums) and dozens of hours
> >> on video tape that I can - if I want to spend the time - view for my
> >> own pleasure or show to others. **Kitty]
> >>
> >>> However, our
> >>> previous discussions on the topic of building muscle and strength
> >>> has made me question my preference for lifting weights.
> >>>
> >> Lifting weights may be of more value to the elderly to oppose sarcopenia
> >> and reduction of bone density/strength, but I do not see it to be of as
> >> good health/longevity value for younger people as are many other kinds
> >> of exercise. In addition, I cannot see why pure physical grunt work is
> >> as enjoyable as applying the same physical labor to something inherently
> >> useful in its accomplishment.
> >
> > I have thought about your paragraph above quite a bit in the last few
> > days. I have concluded that I lift weights to provide me with a more
> > systematic protocol for maintaining my strength.
>
> By why do you want to maintain this strength to a greater degree than
> would naturally happen from the activities mentioned below?

I think that if I maintain my strength to a level slightly *above* the
point my current activities require, I would be less likely to have
accidents (i.e. falling off my bike, which I ride frequently). Having
a level of strength that is slightly higher than what is required for
daily living would make me safer than being at a level that was lower
than what is required. Should I be at a level of strength that is
lower, or even with, what is required for my daily activities, I think
I would often struggle with activities, which may put me at risk of
harm.

OTOH, it may be that, if I must struggle a little with some daily
activities, I would benefit from the increased exertion required to
execute those activities (should I have an overall lower level of
strength). I didn't think of this before you asked.

> > I do take many
> > opportunities to do something useful with my labor, such as chopping
> > wood for my parents' wood burner when I lived with them to contribute to
> > the household, as well as riding my bike to class instead of driving.
> > However, from my understanding of the many muscle groups and ranges of
> > motion in the body, I would be neglecting many of them if I only engaged
> > in "useful" physical labor. For example, I have noticed that my hip
> > flexors are quite weak, and I can not hold my leg straight out in front
> > of me for very long before my hip flexors become very fatigued. I
> > understand hip flexors to be important for posture and for avoiding
> > falls, so I want to correct this.
>
> You are "putting the cart before the horse".

Perhaps I am. However, WRT some muscle groups, I understood that a
level of strength that is greater than the minimum necessary will
lower the risk of accidental injury.

> If you do maintain your
> good posture, then those muscles necessary to do so will automatically
> be maintained sufficiently to do so.
>
> [All that would be needed in addition, is some stretching activities.
> The subject of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise is one for another
> post (beyond what I say further below) if you or someone else wish to
> pursue it. **Kitty]
>
> > However, I don't think my current
> > bike-riding will help very much with this weakness.
>
> What weakness? Do you have bad posture? Do you fall easily?

I was referring to my hip flexors. However, after considering this
more, I think I may simply have the impression that I should be
stronger than I need to be. Taking the time and effort to maintain
this greater level of strength than is required is just a waste of my
time.

> > So my weight lifting protocol is to target those muscle groups that
> > I don't normally use (which is many of them).
>
> So what?

From my understanding, muscle mass and strength decline with age and
non-use. Those muscles that decline in strength the quickest are those
that are used the least. To prevent having problems with any muscle
group that I do not normally use, I thought it would be prudent to
design an exercise routine that would target the muscle groups that I
rarely use. Besides my bike riding, I currently exercise a very narrow
range of muscle groups (just some standing and sitting at the lab I
work in). Because of this limited variation in the muscle groups I
use, I thought I should make an effort to maintain the muscles I don't
use, in case I wish to use them in the future, or in the event that I
do not use those muscle groups for a long period of time.

> Unless you are planning on major changes to the muscular
> activities that you require to accomplish the goals of your life, then
> why do you need to prepare muscles for such tasks?

I am not sure which muscles I will need for the tasks in my future, so
I thought a generally high level of strength would keep me prepared
for anything.

> Any healthy young
> person will automatically exercise the muscles needed in hir daily
> activities to the extent to which such exercise is needed to accomplish
> such activities. Hell, even at the ages of me and Kitty, we do not do
> any special exercises to prepare our muscles for the strenuous dancing
> that we do

I thought I saw pictures of Paul lifting weights on Morelife.org.

> (Kitty describes her exception to this below). It happens
> automatically through the activity. The secret is to have sufficiently
> repetitive activity of the kinds that you want to do, rather than be a
> once a month warrior. For us it appears that weekly high energy
> dancing is sufficient. For myself I have always been able to keep in
> excellent physical shape without exercise and then respond well to
> strenuous work. Of course, I do walk around the house a bit (and even
> dance occasionally), perform property/house maintenance tasks (3.5
> acres in AZ), walk in the yard and take the steps two at a time
> whenever I come up from the (AZ) basement.

It does sound as though you get adequate exercise that includes work
for various muscle groups. I had the impression that my normal
activities excluded certain muscle groups. However, I'm beginning to
think that my non-use of these muscles is not such a big deal,
especially considering that I expect to be involved in many, many
home-improvement projects in the next few months, which will give me
the opportunity to use a variety of muscle groups. I may continue to
do such a workout routine as I described, but perhaps I would only do
it once per month (i.e. a fraction of the time I have in the past), as
this may be sufficient to maintain a useful level of strength.

I also just realized that I may be overcompensating with regard to the
prevention of sarcopenia. This could be especially true in my case,
since I have previously spent a large amount of time and effort
developing muscle mass. So, while it is true that I can expect to lose
muscle mass as I grow older (regenerative medicine notwithstanding),
at this point, I start this "decline" process from a higher level of
muscular development. Because of this, it may be that I need to invest
*less* time in muscle maintenance than a person who has attained much
less muscle mass at the same age.

> [My daily "artificial" exercise is mentioned near the very bottom of
> our Mental/Physical Activities page -
> http://morelife.org/personal/physacts.html

I tried several times to find the link above. I finally found what I
think you were referring to (and what I was referring to when I stated
that I saw Paul lifting weights). Here is the link:
morelife.org/personal/health/physacts.html. Note that it appears you
forgot the "health" subfolder after the "personal" subfolder.

> This is done upon arising
> before starting the day because I can easily remember to do them by
> making it a part of my day. The purpose is as I've said on that page -
> to keep my abdominal muscles particularly strong so as to protect my
> lower back that was abused during my early nursing career days (and
> with which I did continue to have problems up to the early 2000s when
> I received treatments from an excellent chiropractor in Toronto, and
> began these daily morning exercises).
>
> My daily routine is much like Paul describes for himself. I take every
> opportunity to move horizontally and vertically. I've changed entirely
> my way of thinking from one in which a person tries to economize
> movement to one in which every movement is viewed as natural exercise.
> I sit only when the activity requires it - transporting myself in the
> car (or as a passenger when Paul is driving), much of our eating time,
> working on the computer, and reading before going to sleep are the big
> 4 I can think of. All the rest of the time I stand with as much
> horizontal and vertical movement included as is appropriate for the
> location. And at dancing events (special and regular) I get in lots of
> both (it is rare that either of us ever sit at a dance event). Also
> when the music being played at home is conducive to dancing, I take
> the opportunity during my frequent breaks from the computer.

I think I would benefit from taking frequent breaks from the computer
(where I spend most of my time reading and writing). I'll keep this in
mind.

> And I too take the basement steps upward 2 at a time ;>) - except when
> I'm carrying something heavy. **Kitty]
>
> > I want to clarify my weight lifting protocol for this discussion, since
> > the term "weight-lifting" can be associated with many degrees of
> > intensity. I currently lift weights for about 20 minutes, three times
> > per week. During those sessions I do exercises involving my body weight
> > (push-up derivatives, sit-ups), and some other exercises with 15 or 30
> > lbs in each hand, depending on the exercise. I do not have a goal of
> > lifting an enormous amount of weight, which can be very stressful on the
> > immune system and joints. Instead, during my workouts I try to
> > systematically "challenge" those muscle groups which are otherwise
> > neglected by my daily activities. Some important areas to me are my
> > shoulders (I had a shoulder injury due to a fall several years ago, and
> > the resistance training helps), my lower back (which hurt in the past
> > due to my sitting at a computer hunched-over for long hours - resistance
> > training has improved this also),
>
> These last two are reasonable (similar to Kitty's exception above) if
> you still have weaknesses/problems related to those areas.

I have noticed that these problems have gone away with continued
weightlifting. I notice that if I do not lift weights for several
weeks I begin to feel lower back pain again.

> However, I
> want to mention that I too had lower back problems in my late 20's but
> with use of better posture, particularly when lifting boxes or other
> heavy objects during normal activities this totally want away and I have
> had no sign of such problems for over 30 years now. In addition, since
> meeting Kitty, and being reminded by her to stand up straighter
> (something that I did not think would accomplish much because of my
> natural "bird neck" - comes out more towards the front of my body), I
> have been amazed to find that that also can be largely corrected. Of
> course it also helps that life with Kitty has so greatly enhanced my
> self-esteem and confidence that I very naturally go around feeling
> straight and tall rather than slumped and depressed.

Again, it's wonderful to read how another person can have such a
positive effect on one's life (and posture *smiles*).

> > and my upper back (I had never
> > developed this area very much while previously weight-training, and I
> > think it is important to have well-developed back muscles to support the
> > spine).
>
> Again (as above) simply standing straight and supporting your spine will
> automatically cause such muscles to be sufficiently developed. I think
> that what you are missing here is that the human body is a wonderfully
> self-organized and self-ordered system that will totally look after
> itself if not abused and given the right nutrition.

Again, perhaps you are correct and I am overestimating the amount of
time and effort I need to put towards muscle development.

> > I am happy with my current weight-lifting protocol, as I don't think it
> > stresses my body very much due to the lower-weight compared to what I
> > previously used (I once bench-pressed 300 lbs - excessive, I know),
> > doesn't take up very much time, and it exercises those muscles that,
> > with time, tend to be neglected and result in injuries.
> >
> >> The trick is to find useful physical labor in this day of so many
> >> labor saving devices and a general trend toward reducing physical
> >> labor for productive purposes. However, that is why I and Kitty always
> >> eschew taking the easy way to do many things as long as we can afford
> >> the time. For example I use hand saws for most of what I saw as long
> >> as there is no necessity to get a very straight cut.
> >
> > Yes this is a good trick. On the rare occasion that someone helps me
> > with my house projects, I often get asked why I choose to use a hand-saw
> > for 2x4's instead of using the electric circular saw. I'm surprised to
> > see most people eschew such an opportunity to get a little extra
> > exercise and accomplish something by doing it.
>
> [I haven't yet gotten to creating that page of photos showing all the
> wood cutting and splitting we did at the cottage this past October.
> (I'm just now organizing the page showing the downing of 3 large dead
> trees.) But the vast majority of it was done by us manually - great
> exercise! **Kitty]

Yes! And I assume you'll be using the wood you gathered, which is great.

> >> When I "make" the water every few days (25 gallons of water after
> >> reverse osmosis treatment), I always have to carry out the pails of
> >> effluent water (slightly higher concentration of impurities than from
> >> the tap - totaling about 100 gallons - 10 -10 gallon pails) one in
> >> each hand and water the fir trees with them. (This is in addition to
> >> their regular drip irrigation.) As I do, I lift each up with one arm
> >> to get my other hand underneath it in order to pour it. That gives me
> >> a little natural weight carrying and lifting activity.
> >
> > I think this is a great practice. I try to do something similar when I
> > buy groceries. I only shop every few weeks to "stock up", so when I do,
> > I usually get a fair number of things. When carrying them into the house
> > I try to get them all in one trip, which can get quite heavy. But I
> > think having both hands full of grocery bags is good exercise for one's
> > arms and shoulders. However, I don't do this when I purchase eggs
> > *laughs*. I had an accident doing this with eggs once and I'd rather
> > avoid it in the future.
>
> Yup. Often on the way to the car from the store (we only use a cart on
> those rare occasions when we have bought more than we can physically
> manage to carry) , I will lift each bag in my hands up and down as I
> walk along (ignoring the stares of any onlookers, of course - usually
> all pushing carts).

This sounds like a healthy practice.

> [It's a rare occasion in grocery stores in Arizona that we use a
> wheeled cart, but rather make use of a hand basket. In Ontario,
> however, because we only shop every 2 weeks, a wheel cart is a
> necessity in the 1 of the 2 large grocery stores in Bancroft. And then
> we most often use our backpacks and walk between the 2 health food
> stores, and smaller errand stops in Bancroft itself.

I have considered using a backpack for produce, especially once the
weather is nicer out and it is comfortable to ride to a nearby produce
market. I have considered getting most of my food from this market,
but it is a little far to ride when it is freezing out.

> It's been an
> annoyance that one of the 2 large grocery stores (Price Chopper) is
> built on the northern outskirts of the town and is not at all a
> reasonable walk from the center of town containing No-Frills, bank,
> the health food stores, my hairdresser, post office, etc.
> Interestingly, many other people must think the same because the
> traffic at Price Chopper is always much less than at No-Frills. **Kitty]
>
> >> When coming back from the basement, I only go up the 14 steps one at a
> >> time if I am carrying something heavy and/or awkward, otherwise I go 2
> >> at a time. Unfortunately with most of the buildings being only one
> >> floor, Arizona presents little opportunity for taking stairs instead
> >> of elevators and escalators - although there are certainly lots of
> >> rocky hills to climb.
> >>
> >> When in the supermarket I generally use a hand basket instead of a
> >> cart, and it is also faster to get around through the aisles that way.
> >> I and Kitty also always carry our groceries in cloth bags that we
> >> bring into the market (to save on plastic bag waste - and sometimes to
> >> get a reward for doing so), back to the car, which in turn is parked
> >> at the far end of the parking lot (again, unless we are in a hurry).
> >>
> >> [We've gotten into the habit of looking at the need to make an extra
> >> walking trip (down to the basement, or in a store looking for
> >> something, or back out to the mailbox, etc) as "opportunities", rather
> >> than a nuisance. **Kitty]
> >
> > This seems like a good perspective to have about a brief, physical
> > errand. Currently I try to minimize my *time spent* on these types of
> > errands, as I think I get enough cardiovascular exercise by riding my
> > bike to class four times per week. But for someone who gets relatively
> > little exercise this is a healthy way to look at such an opportunity.
>
> [This is the concept of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise. One need
> only stop and think about physical activity by the regular Jane/Joe
> 100 years ago. If coupled with nutritious eating, restful sleep and
> reasonable practices of cleanliness, they were in decent physical
> condition. The idea of stopping productive activity to purposefully do
> "exercise" would have been bizarre.

Yes, I imagine that doing so would seem bizarre to people at the time.

> All the activities each of them
> did each day provided a wide array of opportunities for all their
> muscles used to perform the tasks that were part of their
> responsibilities. Children grew up participating in these same
> activities and developed those muscles that were needed. Boys
> naturally have more upper body strength, but I'm sure that plenty of
> girls and women in rural areas chopped wood and performed other
> strength-requiring tasks at times when the "men" were unavailable.
>
> It was the idea of being wealthy enough to hire someone else to do the
> work and eventually to purchase "labor-saving" devices that has
> contributed greatly to the demise of natural exercise. So now large
> numbers of people pay money (often large amounts) to health clubs to
> have a place where they can move weights (owned by the club)
> vertically and horizontally and move their entire body in various ways
> - all for the purpose of using muscles they do not use in their
> regular daily activities. **Kitty]

All of the above is true. It is interesting to think about, and a bit
ironic by the way you describe the situation. Labor saving devices
were invented that enabled many people to reduce the amount of time
they spend on daily exercise. Due to this, the average amount of daily
exercise performed by many people decreased enough to warrant going
out of the way to perform extra exercise. In this way, many labor
saving devices could be seen as silly, since this "saved labor" may
need to be replaced by other exercise to maintain optimal health. This
replacement exercise also requires time, so no real saving of time by
use of many time-saving devices occurs.

> >> [Even our manual garage door is an opportunity for me
> >> to weight lift - Paul does most of the driving here in AZ and I get
> >> the door honors ;>) The heavy double door had an automatic opener that
> >> was not working when Paul started living here half a year at a time,
> >> but neither of us has had any interest in seeing if it can be fixed
> >> and even less in replacing it.
> >> I think far too many people fail to make opportunities for physical
> >> activity in their regular daily lives, and spend money to let a
> >> fitness club, they hope, make them fit.... **Kitty]
> >
> > I emphatically agree with your very last comment Kitty. Nearly everyone
> > I interact with at the university think it is strange that I ride my
> > bike to school. They say it's strange because it's winter and can get
> > quite cold. Some of these people pay for gym memberships and make
> > frequent trips out of their way to get exercise. However, some of these
> > same people could ride their bike to class without undue risk of harm
> > and perhaps save money on a gym membership, and additionally save the
> > time they would otherwise spend driving to and from the gym. I'm really
> > happy with my decision to ride my bike to work/class (both at the
> > university). I get approx. 2 hours of bike-riding per week, spend an
> > average of approx. $60/year on gasoline, and save time by riding my bike
> > (compared to driving). It was a great decision for me to do this.
>
> With you driving so little and the cost of insurance being not
> sufficiently related to the miles driven, would it not be actually
> cheaper for you to rent a car for those rare times that you use one?

I have seriously considered this possibility. I have already changed
my insurance coverage to the minimum possible, and emphasized to my
insurer that I wanted a rate to reflect the amount I drive. They have
a use-category called "recreational driver". I explained that this
would be appropriate for me, since I ride my bike to school and work.
Groceries are a bit more difficult to obtain without the car, and I
pay a higher cost at the produce market nearby. However, I also save
money by not having the car.

> But
> I suppose this would not be true, particularly with the time and delay
> necessary to rent a car, if you are making many, many very small trips.

Yes, and additionally, I would need to transport myself to the place
where the rental car is located.

> I have known people who lived in a downtown area of a large city
> (Toronto) and wisely did not own a car, but rented one when they wanted
> to take trips outside the city. The only reason that I have never done
> this is because I have always needed a car either for my work or for
> frequent trips outside the city.

I am very happy with my situation, being able to ride to school and
work on my bike. I infrequently take trips outside of the city.

> [And vehicle parking in a large North American eastern city can also
> be a real hassle and big expense. **Kitty]

Parking at the University I work and go to school at costs over $100
per semester. I thought this was totally outrageous, and started
riding my bike instead. I made it through my first winter, and have
been riding at least 3 days per week since August 2008, so I'm happy
with myself for sticking with it. Lower car maintenance and gasoline
costs are nice too.

> >>> This change of
> >>> habits, behavior, or disposition toward a preference has been difficult
> >>> for me. It is less difficult when the negative consequences of a
> >>> preference are obvious to me (such as being fat). However, when
> >>> evaluating some preferences, I find that it is difficult to clearly
> >>> determine the net, long-term outcome, such as with lifting weights. I
> >>> know I very much enjoy lifting weights.
> >>>
> >> But have you fully analyzed the rationality of all the reasons why you
> >> "enjoy lifting weights", rather than merely the possible long term harm
> >> of having unnecessary muscle (which I agree is not black and white)?
> >
> > I appreciate your bringing up this important question to me. I think I
> > have given the subject a thorough enough evaluation to justify my
> > current level of weight lifting frequency and intensity.
> >
> > There is one other possible positive aspect of weightlifting that helps
> > me to justify to myself my current weight lifting protocol. I also have
> > a hypothesis that weight lifting while restricting calories (which is
> > what I do) will improve autophagic proteolysis and protein recycling.
>
> Not any more than any other activity which requires energy. It is a pure
> calorie balance situation and the source from which the energy can come.
> See the current thread "vigorous exercise followed by single meal" for
> details.

I have read this, and I agree that protein recycling is partly a
function of energy requirement. However, I understand weight lifting
to have a higher protein requirement than aerobic exercise.
Additionally, I understand the act of weight lifting to increase
protein requirement for muscle repair *after* exercise, and hence,
would be more effective at enhancing protein recycling than aerobic
exercise alone.

> > I found one article that found that, after a fasted weight lifting
> > session, protein synthesis was greater than protein degradation. From my
> > limited understanding of protein balance, this would require the body to
> > use its current sources of nitrogen and amino acids to have a positive
> > protein synthesis value in the fasted state.
>
> Yes, but not any source of nitrogen that is not in the form of an amino
> acid, since the body cannot build amino acids from scratch. And the
> amino acids are only needed for protein building - not for
> gluconeogenesis for energy production.

Hmm, I did not know this is the way it works. I still have plenty of
biochemistry reading to do!

> > And since there is no
> > exogenous source of amino acids (subjects exercised while fasted and
> > remained so for some time after the exercise), endogenous protein must
> > have been recycled (i.e. proteolysis and recycling) to achieve a
> > positive protein synthesis value.
>
> The muscle cells are the body's major place for protein storage (just
> as fat cells are for storage of triacylglycerols) and will largely be
> tapped for amino acids required for protein building during fasting.

> The value of exercising during fasting is that this also increases the
> push to build muscle protein and thus puts pressure on the system to
> get the necessary amino acids from elsewhere.

Right. And if anaerobic weight lifting causes an even greater push to
obtain amino acids from elsewhere (as I described above and I
understand it does), then my hypothesis that weight lifting
(especially while fasting) is of even greater benefit with regard to
protein recycling.

> Which unfortunately can
> be from other non-exercised muscles, so I guess perhaps that is a good
> reason to exercise all muscles groups when you do exercise particularly
> when fasting.

Agreed.

> [I like to use my entire body when dancing and this is why I find the
> (occasional) interludes in trance and house music very conducive to my
> style. I make use of those periods to stretch in all directions, and
> this is one reason why I do not enjoy being crowded in when dancing.
> And of course when the tempo is up, I really move - as anyone who has
> seen me can verify ;>) **Kitty]

Yes, I need to develop the habit of using all of my muscle groups,
especially in activities such as stretching in all directions, as you
describe. I have been trying to make a habit of taking breaks
approximately every hour while at the computer to stand, stretch,
relax my eyes, and lean in all directions for a few minutes. I have
found this "stretching break" to be refreshing.

> > I have not studied this hypothesis as much as I'd like, but I have seen
> > some evidence that it may be true. I am currently working toward a
> > better understanding of biochemistry, so I can better evaluate evidence
> > related to hypotheses such as this one. If anyone would like to study it
> > further and report it here I would appreciate it. I have spent some time
> > trying to find the article and finally found one that sounds familiar (I
> > have not read it in a while). Here is the link to the Pubmed abstract:
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9252485
>
> The problem with amino acid balance measurements is that they cannot
> determine which areas of the body the protein is coming from and going
> to. This would need extremely complex measurements of all muscle
> strengths and even then would be lacking in other axes of the body for
> which the protein content cannot be measured.

This is a good point you mention about non-exercised muscles being a
possible source of amino acids for the exercised ones. I didn't think
this was the way one's body works WRT protein metabolism.

> > Additionally, I understand that exercise, especially weight-lifting and
> > other anaerobic exercise, strongly enhances insulin sensitivity and
> > glucose disposal.
>
> Do you currently have low insulin sensitivity, high fasting blood
> glucose with particularly high post-prandial spikes and a high HbA1C
> measurement?

To my knowledge, no, to all of the above. My fasting blood glucose is
fairly low (83mg/dL), and I think my insulin sensitivity is high (my
fasted insulin is low). I don't know about HbA1C, as I haven't had it
measured yet.

> If so, then lifting weights would benefit you. If not, then
> at your age, you do not need to lift weights for this purpose. Remember
> that none of the CR experiments show any increase in longevity with
> weight lifting,

I didn't know there were CR experiments that included weightlifting or
other resistance exercise. I thought it would be difficult to get mice
to lift dumbells (*smiles*) so I never looked for such experiments.
Perhaps there are ways to test such a hypothesis. I read about one
study that tested muscle protein synthesis rate by attaching a weight
to one of the two wings of a bird and compared the muscle mass and
strength of each wing after a duration. The mass of small weight
attached to the single wing was increased over time.

> and only those on very mild CR show any advantage to
> exercise beyond that normal in any healthy active individual in addition
> to the CR.

Yes, you could be right. I will continue to consider this.

> > I have read several articles that specifically
> > advocated strength training as a treatment for type 2 diabetics to
> > improve insulin sensitivity. This is another benefit I see for
> > maintaining a strength-training protocol.
>
> Are you a type 2 diabetic with low insulin sensitivity?
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

*Laughs*. Yes, you have a point. I assumed that higher insulin
sensitivity is better, and that these same protocols to treat insulin
sensitivity will also help to *maintain* insulin sensitivity.

> (which is very different than
> preventing it from getting broke, but the methods for the two are not
> necessarily the same).

With regard to weight lifting and exercise preventing insulin
insensitivity, my understanding is that its prevention and treatment
methods are the same (at least with regard to weight lifting and
exercise).

> <Snipped some text not needing a response.>
>
> >>> It brings me happiness. However, does
> >>> the long-term negative consequences associated with weight-lifting
> >>> out-weigh the happiness I derive from it over my lifetime? The
> >>> answer to this is difficult for me to decide upon.
> >>>
> >> As long as you are certain that the happiness you derive from any
> >> activity is fully reasonable, then you should not totally eliminate
> >> it unless it is very clearly of major harm. OTOH, I cannot see how
> >> it would be possible to rationally continue to enjoy something that
> >> is harmful.
> >
> > Right, I agree. I think Nathaniel Branden explained this well in the
> > books of his I have read so far. The idea I got from him was that
> > continuing to enjoy (or participate) in something that is clearly
> > harmful harms one's self-esteem - and for good reason. One some level of
> > consciousness, one is aware that one's behavior is self-destructive, and
> > is good reason to be disappointed in one's behavior, and essentially, in
> > one's self.
>
> Yes. In the end it is the self-contradiction that is destructive - which
> is a point that I made above.
>
> [This addresses part of the reason why self-esteem must be
> self-acquired/earned - it cannot be given to someone. Parents *can*
> stiffle it in younger children (and unfortunately many do) but older
> children and adults must acquire it for themselves. Others can be
> sought for their assistance in understanding how to do this, but the
> individual *must* acquire hir own self-esteem. So statements by
> teachers and schools about ensuring that a child have self-esteem are
> muddled in lack of understanding of the concept itself. **Kitty]

Yes, it is clear that one must develop one's self-esteem for
themselves. To say that "teachers and schools must ensure" the
development of self-esteem may not make sense. However, it could mean
that teachers and schools should understand self-esteem and its
development, and encourage children to think about themselves in a way
that is conducive to the development of self-esteem. I think this
would be appropriate, but I estimate many teachers and schools far
fall short of this goal.

> <snipped more text not needing a response>
> >
> >> [It is quite reasonable to get pleasure from encouragement and praise,
> >> but reasonably encouragement and praise should mean little from those
> >> one has little respect for (just as negative criticism from someone
> >> for whom you have no respect means little). **Kitty]
> >
> > I have found this to be true, and is generally the perspective that I have.
>
> But this is something that I went over again above, since your remarks
> there suggested that you really do not fully understand or have not
> fully adopted that approach.

I think I have not fully adopted the approach, and it is something
that I frequently think about and work on. Perhaps this would have
been clearer if I had written "I have found this to be true, and I
generally apply this perspective, although sometimes I fail to do so".

> [Maybe that is why Max/Steve wrote "generally"...he appears to
> recognize that he has not fully integrated the concept. **Kitty]

This is right, Kitty.

> >> [In contrast, the praise
> >> and encouragement will mean far more from someone highly valued (as
> >> will also any negative expressions from such a person be more
> >> hurtful). So if you want to retain this type of pleasure, I suggest
> >> cultivating and/or increasing friendships with those you admire and
> >> in beneficial activities that you both/all enjoy. **Kitty]
> >
> > That is good advice. My current organic chemistry professor did to me
> > recently in class. First, I usually answer his in-class questions
> > correctly. However, I skipped class twice in the last two weeks and he
> > came to the lab I work in and asked me (playfully) if I was dropping his
> > course. I told him no, and that I was studying independently. The next
> > class session I answered some relatively difficult questions and he said
> > to me in front of the class: "Okay, Steve, you are the only one who is
> > allowed to skip my class". *laughs in enjoyment*. That felt good, even
> > more so because I know I worked to earn the praise.
>
> Good!
>
> [Here's a demonstration of the *earning* of self-esteem to which I
> referred above. **Kitty]
>
> >> [Paul and I are praise/encouragement sources for each other. **Kitty]
> >
> > This praise from other individuals whom I admire and respect is
> > something that does not come frequently for me, mostly because there
> > aren't many people regularly involved in my life whom I respect. So
> > that's great that you and Paul are a source of praise and encouragement
> > for one another.
>
> We also get little praise from others about things that are really most
> important to us (mainly only related to dancing abilities relative to
> our ages), except from one another.
> However, you now have the addition of us from whom to get praise and
> encouragement and vice versa (which is a major purpose for having good
> friends).

True. I'm very glad to have you as friends, and to be a friend to each
of you.

> >> [We do enjoy the praise we
> >> get from others when we dance, an activity that we have evaluated as
> >> being truly beneficial, partly because it has so many facets to it,
> >> and we certainly enjoy the praise more from a good DJ and/or other
> >> good dancers than from those who simply stand on the sidelines. **Kitty]
> >
> > Yes, I'd bet many DJs have seen quite a few dancers, so to receive
> > praise might be more pleasurable, given the DJs assumed experience.
> >
> >> [In your case, Steve, from what I read, you are motivated to do a
> >> thorough assessment. Based on your reported actions, I think you will
> >> be successful in making the choice that will best optimize your
> >> lifetime happiness. **Kitty]
> >
> > Thanks for the encouragement Kitty *warm smiles*. I read your
> > encouragement at an ironic time -- just after I was lamenting above
> > how there are very few people in my life from whom I would enjoy
> > encouragement. So the timing was excellent *big laughs*.
>
> [I could say this about my "previous life" too. Outside of my
> employment work and its aspects, there was only 1 person with whom I
> could discuss most of the highly important areas of life including of
> course philosophy - my former husband's regular comment was "What's to
> discuss? It's obvious."

I estimate that that kind of outlook about life made for shallow
conversation.

> So life since Dec 1999 has been an enormous
> pleasant change. **Kitty]
>
> >>> I have been trying to evaluate
> >>> all of my preferences and behaviors in this manner and have begun to
> >>> feel ambivalent about nearly everything I enjoy. Most habits have
> >>> positive and negative aspects related to each of them.
> >>>
> >> Sometimes the negative effects can be reduced or eliminated entirely by
> >> practicing moderation in the activity. However, there are many activities,
> >> particularly mental ones, that have no negative aspects other than the
> >> use of your limited amount of time. I think that you need to develop
> >> many more enjoyable mental activities and only do physical ones to the
> >> extent necessary to stay healthy - which is actually very little once
> >> you are on a CR and fasting protein cycling diet.
> >
> > I think your suggestion above is accurate and useful for me. I do find
> > that I feel physically well nearly every day, and am ill very
> > infrequently, which indicates that I am in good health. However, I do
> > find that I get "bored" fairly often - when I'm not busy with
> > schoolwork. I think this boredom is a function of the limited number
> > of mental activities I engage in - just what you noted above.
>
> Frankly, any such notion of "boredom" is something that I have *never*
> experienced (except when in a restricted situation not of my own
> choosing), so I do not have much understanding of what your problem is.
> In fact, your statement causes me some irritation because I can think
> of no better mental stimulation than reading and attempting to
> understand the material on the SelfSIP website, which action and the
> ensuing questions and discussions would, in addition, be the best
> possible return of value that you, as a friend, could do for me.

Good point. I have deeply considered your above comments about boredom
in the past several days, and I have discovered some important ideas.

First, after evaluating whether I was really experiencing "boredom", I
realized that what I had called "boredom" above was actually my
indecisiveness in choosing an activity (which I discussed in earlier
comments in this message). That is, I had called "boredom", my state
of "not knowing what to do with myself", even though I knew there were
many things I *wanted* to do.

Second, I realized that perhaps I have developed the habit of enjoying
the feeling of being "entertained", without my effort. That is,
throughout my life I, my acquaintances and family, have often
participated in (or more appropriately, "surrendered to") activities
such as watching movies, television, or playing video games. The form
of entertainment that I often engaged in is video games. This form of
entertainment grew into a habit, an activity I would engage in at the
end of the day, usually in the last hour or two of being awake, as I
was becoming sleepy.

While I think there are a number of positive effects I benefit from my
previous playing of video games, in the past I have clearly spent too
much time playing them. I have made a strong effort in changing this
habit in the past several years, and especially in the past year. I
recognize video games to be enjoyable to me, and they can be
mentally-stimulating, relaxing, or motivating. But recently I have
noticed that I too often play them for their entertainment value -
their ability to stimulate my mind without my effort. I realized this
and decided that it was not the way I wanted to live my life - being
one of those "zombies" I mentioned above.

So I think part of my admission of being bored is related to my
slipping back into this bad habit of having the desire to be
entertained. Instead, I am beginning to find ways by which to feel
rewarded and happy while being productive. The main way by which I
feel rewarded by being productive is that, by being productive, I am
working to improve my life - an effort that I am proud of and that
brings me happiness.

Furthermore, after recognizing the above about myself, I have found it
very apparent that the great majority of people I am acquainted with
to have what I call an "entertainment addiction". This might be
similar to what Kitty describes as frequent engagement in "escapist
activities". It is very disturbing to me how apparently little time
nearly all of my acquaintances spend on studying, self-improvement,
and productive work, and instead participate in some of the most
meaningless, random, and even foolish activities. When I observe such
behavior in others, it illustrates to me the huge disparity between my
philosophies and those of my acquaintances. At first, this disparity
is very depressing to me. However, I understand that not all people
are like the majority of those I am currently acquainted with, and
also, that I am not acquainted with very many people. So, I will
continue searching for others with philosophies similar to my own,
while appreciating my current relationships with those I respect.

> [Henry Hazlitt's book "Thinking as a Science" is particularly great in
> the chapter where he discusses the idea of simply doing purposeful
> thinking and the value that can provide. The fact that so few people
> actually do it these days is not surprising since the common
> distractions of reading material and computers abound. But this has
> definitely been to the detriment of acquiring the ability to develop
> and hone one's own thinking skills so that s/he can, in part, better
> assess and, if determined warranted, can assimilate what s/he does
> read and hear. In addition, by being able to *really* think, one can
> originate ideas that others have missed by just not noticing existing
> relationships.  **Kitty]

Sounds like a good book. I have tried to look for it on Audible.com
and did not find it. I will have to look for it at the UT and Toledo libraries.

> >>> One positive
> >>> aspect that must be weighed against the negative aspects of a
> >>> given habit is the enjoyment derived from that habit.
> >>>
> >> Absolutely true. But in the end your emotional response to the activity
> >> must become an integrated whole habit, rather than fragmented into
> >> negative and positive aspects depending on your thoughts. Perhaps you
> >> are still at the stage of constantly fragmented thoughts about the
> >> activity rather than having fully reprogrammed your emotions to become
> >> the subconscious and automatic *net results* of these thoughts.
> >
> > This describes exactly how I feel about many of my habits: that I have
> > not yet fully reprogrammed my emotions to be the automatic net result of
> > my thoughts about a given habit. There are some habits I have concluded
> > that I enjoy, and emotionally appreciate them when I engage in them. One
> > example is my enjoyment of ground flax seed, which I have a few
> > tablespoons per day of.
>
> Just be careful that either it is fresh when you buy it and then
> stored in the refrigerator or, best, you keep the seeds in the
> refrigerator and you only grind it when needed.

I keep them in a sealed container and only grind them when needed.
Once ground, I keep them in a container in the refrigerator.

> > But, my special enjoyment of flax seed is the
> > aroma. I remember when I first started losing weight when I was 210 lbs
> > I decided that flax seed would be helpful in getting healthy fatty
> > acids, and fiber to keep me feeling fuller. I remember smelling the
> > ground flax, and the aroma was strange to me, as I had never eaten it
> > before. I was a little wary of eating it at first, since it was foreign
> > to me. But at the time I decided that I would lose the excess weight,
> > even if I had to "resort" to eating things that were foreign to me. Now,
> > the smell of flax seed reminds me of my previous determination to change
> > my habits, and that I have maintained those healthier habits. Knowing
> > this, and that flax is quite healthy, makes my eating flax enjoyable
> > to me in several ways.
>
> That's an excellent approach. We have the same for several things. There
> can be many reasons to enjoy things and interestingly enough those other
> reasons can even enhance the taste over time. This is the way that an
> integrated, non-contradictory body and mind work together.

I see what you mean, by mind and body working together. It *does* feel
good.

> --Paul
>
> >> [Reprogramming one's emotions is not quickly done, but rather can take
> >> many months. And even then there will likely be times years later that
> >> a "reminder" pleasurable emotion will occur with an activity or person
> >> that has been determined to be rationally negative. (Many former
> >> smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers report this to be the case.) **Kitty]
> >
> > I also occasionally experience this related to eating too-large of
> > portions of treats.
>
> [Me too ;>) **Kitty]

*Laughs*. That's good to know I'm not the only one who makes a great
effort and still struggles with this. Although, I hope your indulging
in treats is not to the point it is detrimental to your long-term
health (as I hope mine are also not).

--Max Peto / Steve Floyd

> >> But if
> >> one is mostly consistent in hir values (no one is 100% consistent),
> >> and they have a foundation of principles valid for reality, then hir
> >> emotions and ideas/values will quickly come back into accord. **Kitty]
> >
> > ---
> > Max Peto / Steve Floyd

This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.

This article has come about because Kitty has thoroughly understood
and integrated the ideas of the Self Sovereign Individual Project,
particularly from the essay introducing the concept of Social
Meta-Needs  with it twin implementations through Social Preferencing
and the Natural Social Contract. I was particularly pleased that the
piece also required very little editing from me. Of course it greatly
helps that she was a part of the discovery and development of those
ideas, but such deep understanding and full integration is certainly
not beyond the powers of many others.

We both look forward to a time when many more people (first a few,
then dozens and finally hundreds! :-) have accomplished this deep
understanding and full integration and are presenting their own unique
and persuasive examples and interpretations of these novel and
profound social ideas in practical human social action.

--Paul


[The RRND commentary webpage currently has my article at the top of
its list - http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary :>)

As I wrote Tom when I sent him notice of the article's publication, I
purposely submitted this article, Tax/Regulation Protests are Not
Enough at OpEdNews.com because it is a "progressive" news site and
while many there have some of the wrong ideas of how to get to and
even in some ways what constitutes a better society, it is clear that
all writers and commenters there really do want one. I think that
there can be inroads made by reaching out beyond the "choir" with this
view of those who do not currently hold some of the same views by
finding some foundational common points. I am pleased that the
managing editor, after rereading and reconsidering, moved my
submission from a diary entry to which she had downgraded it, to a
headlined article. **Kitty]

Paul Antonik Wakfer wrote:
> This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
> OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
> the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
> RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
> stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
> Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
> within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
> special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
> OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.
>
> This article has come about because Kitty has thoroughly understood
> and integrated the ideas of the Self Sovereign Individual Project,
> particularly from the essay introducing the concept of Social
> Meta-Needs  with it twin implementations through Social Preferencing
> and the Natural Social Contract. I was particularly pleased that the
> piece also required very little editing from me. Of course it greatly
> helps that she was a part of the discovery and development of those
> ideas, but such deep understanding and full integration is certainly
> not beyond the powers of many others.
>
> We both look forward to a time when many more people (first a few,
> then dozens and finally hundreds! :-) have accomplished this deep
> understanding and full integration and are presenting their own unique
> and persuasive examples and interpretations of these novel and
> profound social ideas in practical human social action.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> [The RRND commentary webpage currently has my article at the top of
> its list - http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary :>)
>
> As I wrote Tom when I sent him notice of the article's publication, I
> purposely submitted this article, Tax/Regulation Protests are Not
> Enough at OpEdNews.com because it is a "progressive" news site and
> while many there have some of the wrong ideas of how to get to and
> even in some ways what constitutes a better society, it is clear that
> all writers and commenters there really do want one. I think that
> there can be inroads made by reaching out beyond the "choir" with this
> view of those who do not currently hold some of the same views by
> finding some foundational common points. I am pleased that the
> managing editor, after rereading and reconsidering, moved my
> submission from a diary entry to which she had downgraded it, to a
> headlined article. **Kitty]

Thank you for sending the notification about, and link to, Kitty's
article on OpEdNews. I spent some time to create a profile on the site
so I can comment on someone else's comment. I enjoyed the article. The
following is an excerpt from Kitty's article that I will comment on:

(begin-quote)"Today (2009), electronic access to countless sources of
information (many not even available 40 years ago) and rapid lengthy
communication with virtually anyone else can be had by the vast majority
of those in the industrialized areas of the world and much of what is
still on the road to "development". It is a rare person (adult and
child) in the US who does not have access to, if not actually own, hir
own computer; many have computer features in their cellular phones. For
an individual in the US (and much of the world) these days to be
informed on everything that happens currently or in the past and on
ideas published by anyone currently or in the past is now mostly a
matter of interest/desire/time rather than purely technical and/or cost
availability.

So the questions can and should be asked, "Why does the individual still
need to be ruled by others? Is there not a better way now to achieve
social order than by some centralized governing body to which an
individual can, at best, only have an effect if part of a majority
casting votes for a particular candidate/bond/referendum in a particular
election?"" (end-quote)

Meta
A standard old method of quoting a long piece (as above) is to use
"guillemets", which are either ">>" or "<<" marks at the beginning and
end of the quote (see Kitty's example of this in her response to one
of the commenters on OpEdNews). You could also use something equivalent
to my Meta tags as: "Quote" and "/Quote" (which originate from the
methods used in markup languages).
/Meta

I am commenting on this passage in particular because when I read it, I
integrated several ideas which I hadn't previously considered (see my
comment tonight to JonmarkP, where I discuss these ideas). More
specifically, I hadn't considered the idea that the functions of
government may be obsolete *because of* communication technologies
such as the Internet. When information exchange is as fast and
readily-accessible as it is now (and may continue to improve), it
greatly facilitates cooperation between individuals for mutual benefit.
However, such cooperation can't take place unless *both* (or all)
parties pursue the same outcomes. Pursuit of an outcome requires
motivation, motivation requires interest, interest requires recognition
of a need or desire, and such recognition requires *paying attention
to reality* - i.e. *being responsible for one's life*.

I have read about the "democratization" of China, where such
communication technologies are enabling individuals to discuss ideas
that are "forbidden" by the government. However, I hadn't applied the
same idea to the United States and other "Western, developed" countries.
Kitty's article explores this idea by discussing government,
inter-individual cooperation, and both of the previous, in the light
of the historical lack of efficient communication technologies.

I recommend the article.

--Max Peto/Steve Floyd Jr.

Meta
The previous message on this thread is far too long, involving several
distinct subjects. It would have been best to have already broken my
own last reply into parts, but better late than never. I will do so
now. I will also snip as much as possible form both parts. This is my
response to part one which is directed at the psychological and social
parts of the previous message. My response to the physiological parts
of that message will come separately.
/Meta

On 04/05/2009 09:22 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> As an observation related to my composing of this message, I note that I
>>> am now sitting down to develop my reply to this message after several
>>> days has passed during which I have not done so. Now that I have not
>>> read the content of this message in several days, I notice that many
>>> of the things I had typed do not accurately communicate what I had
>>> initially wanted them to. I think Paul recently brought this idea up
>>> to Olafur in a private message as a recommendation of how one might
>>> proofread one's own writings. The method Paul described was that when
>>> one takes a break from writing a message and comes back to it after
>>> some time, one will interpret the initial message much like a person
>>> who has never read it.
>>>
>>> This enables the author to be an effective editor of hir
>>> own work, and in my case with this message, I find this to be true
>>> However, it is also true that the amount of time required between
>>> writing periods may delay the message (as it has done for this message)
>>
>> Meta
>> Actually, since the above comment was *about* the message and composing
>> it, it should have been enclosed in Meta tags. Then my reply comment
>> below would have been placed within within those Meta tags. And this
>> Meta comment would have been in another set of Meta tags inside the
>> other. As it is, because this is a comment *about* that portion of the
>> message, I have placed it in Meta tags.
>
> I did not realize that a Meta tag should be used when commenting about
> the nature of composition of a message.

By using "should" above, I did not mean to imply that you ought to
have done so (which would have been unreasonable on my part since I
only just began to use the Meta tags here myself), but rather that it
would have been best (clearest for communication) if that comment had
been placed in Meta tags. Here once again is the ambiguity of meaning
problem which is so prevalent in natural languages, particularly with
words like "should".

> Since this comment is directly related to your Meta comment above, I
> have placed it here, within your Meta tag.

That was correct. Same for these comments. And if I made a comment
about the nature of your meta comment, then is would properly go
inside another set of meta tags inside the first set.

> I will keep this Meta tag in mind and try to use it the next
> time I have such a comment.

Excellent. Such usage will help you fully understand its meaning (and
test such understanding), which I think is quite important for fully
understanding reality and particularly the usage of symbol/languages -
representatives in general.

Note below that I realized that the "snip" comments were also Meta and
so have now enclosed them in Meta tags.

>> /Meta
>>
>>>> Re: Subjectivity of preferences, happiness, and evaluating habits
>>>>
>>>> On 02/20/2009 09:37 AM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The following is a comment from Kitty to me in a private email
>>>>> regarding the evaluation of a purchase made by someone else.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When I do think of another's expenditures that I would not make, I
>>>>>> often then give a few minutes to consider why that person has made
>>>>>> that purchase (or made that choice if it does not apply directly to
>>>>>> a purchased item) - what is s/he deriving from it? There are many
>>>>>> possibilities when one doesn't know the other person well and the
>>>>>> better hir characteristics are known, the more likely one or two of
>>>>>> the numerous possibilities selected are the actual case.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Good point Kitty. I have been trying recently to emphasize the
>>>>> subjectivity that is inherent in decisions, values, preferences, and
>>>>> choices of activities for enjoyment. I think for the past few years I
>>>>> have tried to discover "the one right way" of behaving, from an
>>>>> objective perspective. However, it is becoming increasingly evident to
>>>>> me that one's previous positive experiences are a large cause of what
>>>>> makes things enjoyable in the present.

Meta
Snipped my own previous comment not responded to.
/Meta

>>>>> At the same time, I understand
>>>>> that new, positive experiences related to "better" habits can be
>>>>> nurtured. This is a cause of some recent frustration for me: which
>>>>> subjective preferences are "bad" and which are "good"? That is, which
>>>>> preferences or behaviors should be replaced with different ones? When
>>>>> one determines that a behavior needs replacing, one must ask: "with
>>>>> what do I replace it ?"
>>>>>
>>>> There are several things here.
>>>> A subjective preference is not the same thing as an emotional response
>>>> to some experience (set of events). A subjective preference should be
>>>> the rational result of your analysis of the contribution to your
>>>> lifetime happiness of "whatever" it is that you are preferencing.
>>>>
>>> I am still having difficulty distinguishing between preferences and
>>> emotional responses. In the way I was thinking of them prior to your
>>> reply, I had confused the two ideas. I thought that subjective
>>> preferences were based on prior experiences which have a positive or
>>> negative aspect to them. In other words, I was thinking of subjective
>>> preferences as emotional responses that have yet to be analyzed and
>>> rationalized that come from past experiences associated with that
>>> behavior/action/situation.
>>>
>> Your statement is *almost* correct. Most certainly initial preferences
>> (all preferences are subjective!) come from past experiences. And the
>> learning experiences during one's development directly cause all one's
>> initial preferences. Besides some contribution from one's genetic
>> makeup, there is simply no other source for those preferences. However,
>> I think that it is important to clearly distinguish between an emotion
>> (a conscious result of wholly *subconscious* "evaluations") and a
>> preference (a conscious choice and action).
>
> I now understand the important distinction between emotional responses
> and preferences. The difference that stood out to me was the fact that
> emotional responses are *subconscious evaluations* and preferences are
> *conscious choices*. This now makes sense to me, and I agree.

It is good that you see this most important difference. However, too
many people still continue to equate the two and make their decisions
about far too many things based on subconscious emotion rather than
conscious preferencing. Now I am the first to agree that it is
impossible to make all choices by fully consciously evaluating all the
pros and cons before taking action. Life is simply far too complex and
the number of choices made everyday far too large to be able to
consciously dwell on each one. So the way that one must practically
operate is to go through this process (of conscious evaluation) a few
times initially with all important choices and then automate such
methods of choice into habits. The trick to make this work well,
however, is to also lay down as part of the habit, the environmental
circumstances under which the automated methods can be relied on to
produce a good result. And if these environmental circumstances do not
hold, to consciously intercede with a "Whoa, wait a minute here!".

>>>> Once that analysis and decision is done and the "whatever" is found
>>>> to contribute to increasing your lifetime happiness, you should
>>>> automatically begin to have positive emotions in proportion to such
>>>> contribution, whenever that "whatever" occurs.
>>>>
>>> The skill of evaluating my preferences and the effect of each on my
>>> lifetime happiness is something that I am trying to develop further. For
>>> example, there are certain types of musics, or specific songs, that will
>>> predictably change my mood to a certain positive state (i.e. relaxed
>>> or happy). Only recently have I began to make a connection between the
>>> changes in my level of happiness and the activities I participate in.
>>> Well, of course it would be difficult to *ignore* the effect of
>>> activities on one's mood, but it is relatively recently that I have made
>>> an effort to pay special attention to these connections so that I can
>>> better understand them and actively seek out those happiness-increasing
>>> activities.
>>>
>> Such "noticing" is, of course the necessary first step prior to making
>> connections and understanding, so it is good that you are increasing
>> your ability to introspectively notice your states of mind and their
>> possible meanings.
>>
>> [I have done a lot of this noticing in the past couple of years and
>> comparing them to emotional levels I experienced in the years prior to
>> about 2005. I think it took about 4.5 years with Paul to come to
>> understand myself much better than ever before so the most marked
>> upward change in my *overall* happiness state has been from about that
>> point. And I fairly often note to myself how different my general mood
>> is from what it was prior to the beginning of 2000. I don't remember
>> doing this kind of "inventory" consciously during the years of my
>> previous relationships, but I can easily look back and recall my mood,
>> which was most very one I would now loosely term a low-level anxiety.
**Kitty]
>
> Kitty, it is encouraging to hear that you recall a relatively recent
> improvement in your ability to notice your emotional state and
> possible causes for it. I admit that, when writing this message, I
> felt a bit as though I might be one of only a few people who
> experienced this.

[I sure hope not, but it is very possible that many people do not make
/take the time do this evaluating. It seems to me that very many
people do all sorts of things that eliminate the opportunity to
actually think about what they are and/or have done/thought. I think
of this very often when I see people engaging in cellphone discussions
or listening to music on headphones while walking/jogging, an occasion
that could be used for some introspection, choice evaluation, etc.
Many modern conveniences are used as avoidance mechanisms for
beneficial activities, which in the wider range, longer view will
likely be detrimental to the individual doing so. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped previous comments not responded to.
/Meta

>>>> With respect to experiences to which you have positive emotions and
>>>> after analysis you now have a much lower subjective preference, what you
>>>> then need do is to modify your emotional response to that experience
>>>> so that it is proportional to that new subject preference. I have in
>>>> previous messages gone over how such emotional "modification" is
>>>> accomplished (similar to changing a habit).
>>>>
>>> Right. I agree with the above. I discuss this more below, but first I
>>> will define and give examples of my thoughts about my "neutral
>>> preferences". I define "neutral preference" as a disposition toward an
>>> action or adopting/preferring some aspect of reality that is "neutral"
>>> with regard to one's lifetime happiness.

I think that after the confusion of meaning it is worth commenting
here on your original attempted definition. The confusion arose
because you attempted to use the very same word "neutral" to define a
"neutral preference". Upon re-reading the above, I realize that I
would not have mistaken your meaning if you had *not* tried to define
that phrase. However, when you then went and used the phrase "neutral
with regard to one's lifetime happiness" (which implied to me neither
increasing nor decreasing in absolute terms rather than having little
effect on the amount of change) then I certainly got the wrong idea of
your intended meaning. Part of the reason for this is that a constant
increase in lifetime happiness is not guaranteed and should never be
taken for granted. It always requires effort on the part of the
individual.

[I think of it as an extension of the old phrase (which those less
that 50 may never have heard), "The world doesn't owe you a living." -
The world doesn't owe anyone happiness. (A more modern equivalent is
the libertarian loved phrase - originating in Heilein's important
novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - TANSTAAFL - "There ain't no
such thing as a free lunch".) Unfortunately in the current US society,
government - and those who support the more recent Western ideas of
ruler/ruled - is viewed by the majority as the proper provider for
"the general Welfare". And what a Pandora's box that wording in the US
Constitution has created. **Kitty]

>>> Some examples of a neutral
>>> preference (for me) are: my preference for having facial hair, my
>>> preference for maintaining a shaved head, and my preference for certain
>>> video games as a form of mental stimulation.
>>>
>> In thinking of these as "neutral", you are guilty of the logical fallacy
>> of isolation of a choice or action from *all* of its surrounding harms
>> and benefits (similar to the broken window fallacy made famous by
>> Bastiat and elucidated superbly by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics
>> in One Lesson").

Again I stated the above because of my (at that time) misunderstanding
of your intended meaning of a "neutral preference". OTOH, once again
your examples actually strengthened that misunderstanding because I
did not see (and still do not see) that having facial hair is neutral
with with respect to the amount of lifetime happiness generated.
Either having facial hair (or not wearing a tie, etc) clearly gives
you more pleasure or it does not. And if it does clearly provide more
pleasure to you, then it should be worth some costs with respect to
its social effects. Whereas if it is truly neutral (has a trivial
effect on your lifetime happiness) then it is not worth any cost at
all and you would not even be discussing it here.

>> In fact, a rational preference choice or action can
>> never be actually neutral (in the sense of neither increasing nor
>> decreasing one's lifetime happiness) since there is always some choice that
>> one at least evaluates will cause one's lifetime happiness to not
>> decrease.
>
> If I'm understanding the above correctly, you saying that "a rational
> preference choice or action can never be neutral because there is
> always some other action or choice that would be more effective in
> increasing one's lifetime happiness". Is this correct?

Yes, except that if by "neutral" one means neither increasing nor
deceasing one's lifetime happiness (which is what I originally took
your meaning to be), then I would rephrase your statement above as "a
rational preference choice or action can never be neutral because
there is always some other action or choice that one would judge to be
likely to increase one's lifetime happiness" I put it in terms of "not
causing one's lifetime happiness to decrease" rather than "increasing
one's lifetime happiness" to account for the situation where one
rationally judges that continuing to live will only cause a decrease
in one's total lifetime happiness. (An example might be a person in
constant pain with no foreseeable hope of cessation of the pain). OTOH
now that I think of it, the very idea of any action being neutral (as
I originally understood your meaning) is actually impossible for such
a person, so I guess my completeness of the statement was not really
necessary in this instance.

Of course, now that I realize (from your later remarks) that your
meaning of "neutral" was simply that taking one decision or another of
a few possibilities would make minimal difference, if any, to your
lifetime happiness, I need to withdraw my statement altogether, since
you are quite right, many choices related to things of very small
importance are neutral in that sense.

>  In other words,
> there is always an opportunity cost in choosing one action or behavior
> preference?

The definition of "opportunity cost" is the value to one of the next
best alternative to the choice and action that one takes. There is
some notion in the minds of some that such a value is "forgone" or
"given up" when one makes the choice/action of higher value. Of course
it should be clear that such a notion is totally irrational because
one did not ever *have* the alternative value and one cannot logically
give up or forgo something that one has never had in the first place.
Put another way, if one were to think of the next higher valued choice
as a "cost" or "loss" as a result of the choice actually made, then
why not the one next higher below that, and so on. Since it is most
often the case that the values of alternative choices are not highly
different (at least as seen at the time of choosing), it would then be
clear that the sum of all these "costs" or "losses" would quickly
overwhelm the value of the actual choice taken. Therefore, if one were
to be logically concerned about "opportunity cost", one should never
make any choice at all, because doing so would always lead to a net
loss of value.

Certainly there are real costs in making any decision, if nothing more
than the time taken to make the decision and take the action, but the
values of all the other things that might have been done with that
time are certainly not part of these real costs. For this reason, I
consider that entire notion of "opportunity cost" to be an irrational
idea and an obfuscating red herring foisted upon the innocent by
pseudo-intellectuals so that they can both confuse the innocent and
appear erudite to them.

So my statements above most certainly did not relate to any silly
notion of opportunity cost.

>> In thoughtfully considering my previous statement it is
>> imperative to remember that lifetime happiness is *not* the happiness up
>> to this point or even the happiness up to right after your next action.
>> Rather it is the estimated happiness that will be obtained for the
>> entire time of your life into the indefinite future (which, since you
>> cannot change the past, is actually the same as the accumulated total
>> happiness over the rest of your life).
>
> I think I understand this concept well. Although it *is* sometimes
> difficult for me to put the effects of decisions into such a
> far-reaching context. I *do* frequently try, though.

Rest assured that it gets easier as you do it more and more, until it
becomes pretty automatic. I now rarely find that I have any need for
so-called "will power" in order to prevent myself from taking the
short range more immediately gratifying choice. Part of the reason for
this is that I have learned to not require myself to always worry
about the most long range optimal choice for every single little
thing. For those things that make little difference (are essentially
neutral to use your terminology) I simply go with my current desires
and enjoy the results rather than attaching any blame or having any
pangs of conscience. Anyway some variety is beneficial and a little
bit of a bad thing can have a positive hormetic kind of effect, both
physiologically and psychologically.

[I too no longer have to exercise "will power" - or at least very
rarely - for the same reasons that Paul has given. **Kitty]

>>> All three of the above examples I periodically re-evaluate with regard
>>> to my lifetime happiness. My frustration is that each of these
>>> preferences of mine have positive and negative aspects to them,
>>>
>> I have news for you. *Every* choice and action has both positive and
>> negative aspects to it, even if the negative is only that the time taken
>> to evaluate and do it cannot be spent evaluating other choices and
>> taking other actions. I face that dilemma every day. I have so many
>> things that I want to do, but only have time to do some of them.
>
> Yes, I face this everyday and it is frustrating to me that I sometimes
> spend too much time *evaluating* my choices and too little time
> *doing* anything.

This will ameliorate as you develop more efficient methods and gain
confidence in your ability to evaluate. Realize that for now with your
limited experience, and the fact that so many evaluations are highly
personal and/or highly dependent on current environmental conditions
(and therefore that for these you cannot use the experiences of others
to aid your decision), you often have little choice but to go with the
reasonable best choice that you can, after trying your best to see any
major problems with it, and then learning by experiencing the results.
In the end, the experience of the "school of hard knocks" is the best
teacher and often the only effective one. I am convinced that for most
people who appear to have "made the right decisions" and "gained
success", luck played more of a role in the process than did wise
planning. That does not mean, of course, that such people have not
earned or do not deserve the value that they have gained. They have
earned such value precisely because the result of their choice was the
production of great value for other people, whether or not it was the
result of good planning on their part or entirely fortuitous. Still I
must admit that I personally feel a certain amount of annoyance at so
many very wealthy people who do not use their wealth in what I
consider to be a rational manner. Much of this annoyance is because I
know that a very large number of such people (perhaps the vast
majority these days) have only arrived at such a wealthy state because
of the irrational state of government interferences and regulations in
current society.

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> which causes me to be ambivalent regarding my preference for them. For
>>> example, I prefer the look of my face having facial hair, compared to
>>> not having facial hair. However, I know that many people do not like
>>> facial hair, and many employers insist on employees not having facial
>>> hair. So I ask myself if the negative preferencing I will experience
>>> outweighs my enjoyment of having facial hair.
>>>
>> This is the wrong approach. Negative preferencing by others says far
>> more about them than it does about you. It can be used by you as a great
>> tool for your own preferencing actions regarding the degree to which you
>> want to relate to others. Do you really want to work for someone or
>> associate much with someone who has that view of what your appearance
>> ought to be?
>
> This is a good point. No, I do not want to work for, or associate
> with, someone who has the view that they should control my appearance.
> However, in my experience, *many* employers have this requirement of
> conforming to what they call a "dress code", which includes both the
> clothes one wears and the facial hair one maintains.

Then look for employers who have such requirements only within
reasonable limits (cleanliness and tidiness appropriate to the nature
of the job). Realize that any such unreasonable requirements should be
viewed as a kind of fraud or deception perpetrated on their clients
and is not a mark of a truly honest, forthright company. Here is an
example of where you should always look *beyond* the immediate example
of irrationality to find the more general and more fundamental error,
illogic and even unethical characteristic of which that simple,
seemingly unimportant example is merely the immediate symptom. For
this reason (that such irrationalities are not isolated by are related
to more philosophically fundamental negative practices), you will
generally find those who have no such unreasonable requirements to be
more rational and compatible in other ways.

[Sometimes if one makes a counter well-presented argument in a
courteous manner, the other party will see the logic of their
positions. Not guaranteed of course, but worth a try. And if nothing
more it gives you practice in presenting the points. **Kitty]


Or, better still by far, develop areas of expertize wherein you can be
self-employed. Particularly since the late 1980's, when I operated a
successful full service computer business in support of several medium
sized business clients, I have realized that being employed or being
in many service areas (not all), essentially means that one is
promoting projects and activities that others think are important
rather than those that oneself thinks are most important. This
realization came from continuing to be bothered by the fact that the
business activities of two of my major clients were not ones that I
thought should exist at all, in the sense that a rational person would
have no interest in the products and services provided by those
businesses. It was not as bad as when, 10 years earlier, I was
instrumental in the computer control of a major Canada Post parcel
processing plant, since that was supporting a government monopoly
organization, but it was still not acceptable to me.

Since that realization, I have always sought to only work at those
projects that I personally thought were most important (and it should
go without saying that my estimation of importance is solely based
upon whether or not I think the success likelihood times the success
value of the project will increase my lifetime happiness more than any
other project of which I can currently conceive). It is also
necessary, of course, to find a way to enable any such project to also
be sufficiently income producing in the near term, that one can
continue to satisfy one's basic necessities. Either that or to be
fortunate enough or to have saved enough from previous work to be able
to live off the income from one's assets alone for some major time
until the project gets to a stage where sufficient number of others
appreciate its value to them.

> I see two
> opposing points on this subject. First, I have found it difficult to
> find employment while having facial hair.

If this is truly the case, then it is clear that you need to either
change location to where employers in your your area of knowledge are
more reasonable, or you need to change areas of knowledge. As with
"Atlas Shrugged", do not sanction such practices by continuing to
associate with those who practice them. Remove your expertize and
abilities from their control and thereby diminish their power.

> Since employment has been
> the best way by which to provide me with my needs, I have felt that
> I have little choice but to conform to their demands regarding my
> appearance.

Again you need to take the long view and avoid such employers, even if
it means satisfaction of fewer of your needs for a while. At your age
you can afford to do with less until you reorganize your life.

> OTOH, it is true that *not all* employers (and more
> narrowly, not even every employer looking for people with skills
> that I possess), require such alterations to my appearance. So, by
> conforming to the appearance requirements of some employers, I was
> actually supporting their effort to dictate my appearance (and the
> appearance of others). If I had more actively sought-out an employer
> that did not have such appearance requirements, I would be supporting
> *them* by providing *them* with my skills and services, rather than
> the employer who required a change to my appearance. However, it
> almost certainly would have been more difficult for me to find
> employment, had I not compromised on my appearance.

But the effort would be worthwhile, even if the choice of facial hair
itself is not that important to you, since you would be socially
preferencing and refusing to sanction such irrational behavior. In
this regard it would be important to publicly declare just why you
made the choice of employer that you did and the philosophical basis
for that choice (which is actually the deception - faking of reality,
rather than the mere ability to have facial hair).

>>> Both of these positive and negative aspects are small, since this
>>> preference is not critical to my life happiness.

Actually in view of several things now discussed above, I think your
statement above is wrong. In making such a statement you have not
fully evaluated the importance of some of these personal practices to
your lifetime happiness (they must be far from "neutral" or you would not even
have raised them here) and you have not realized the full
depth what such restrictions on the part of employers say about them.
I would maintain that it certainly *is* critical to your lifetime
happiness (in the long run, which at your age is most likely a very
long time) to not sanction such behavior and to not associate with
such people (and to explain why to the world).

Meta
Snipped more text to which a reply is not now appropriate.
/Meta

>>> But I do periodically re-evaluate this cost/benefit
>>> situation *and it is this re-evaluation* that is frustrating. It is
>>> frustrating because I think doing so is a nonsensical waste of my time.
>>> I don't know why I can't just confidently conclude: "this is my
>>> preference. There is no harm being done to me for having this
>>> preference, and I enjoy this preference," and proceed to enjoy it,
>>> without periodically re-evaluating it. I have also come to think that I
>>> place too much value on the opinions others hold regarding these neutral
>>> preferences. If I essentially concluded: "I don't care what others
>>> think", then I would not re-evaluate these seemingly neutral
>>> preferences. However, what other people think about me is an important
>>> aspect of life which affects my happiness.  I will continue to think
>>> about this.
>>>
>> What you are missing is that the importance of what others think about
>> you should be directly proportional to your overall evaluation of the
>> benefit to your lifetime happiness of interactions with them.
>
> Your statement above makes sense to me, and I agree. However, I had
> never put others' opinions about me in such a long-term perspective. I
> think if I did this, I would, in general, not be so concerned with the
> opinions of others, since I would realize what little effect most
> peoples' opinions about me will have on my lifetime happiness.

I expect that you will now be altering this lack of long-term
perspective and will realize that the opinions of others only matter
to the extent that those opinions lead to the use of force against
you. The irrational people in the world (at least in North America)
are not yet such a large majority that you cannot find sufficient
numbers, with whom to associate, who understand well that your
personal choices are your own business, as long as they have no
reasonable negative effects on the productive work for which they are
paying you, and who fully appreciate and esteem the rational,
self-responsible approach that you take to reality.

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>> Some of my frustration is that not all preferences are highly positive
>>> or highly negative. Some of them are relatively neutral with respect to
>>> my long-term happiness. However, I think I tend to re-evaluate these
>>> preferences that are neutral with regard to my happiness, and this
>>> re-evaluation is cumbersome. I think I do this because when a preference
>>> is neutral I find it difficult to conclude: "it is neutral, and
>>> therefore does not matter, so I no longer need to evaluate it". I think
>>> I need to learn to just *accept* these neutral preferences and
>>> confidently conclude that they *are* in-fact, neutral, and I can spend
>>> my time thinking about other things.
>>
>> It is clear now that by "neutral" you actually mean that taking an
>> action or not taking it will make little difference to your total
>> lifetime happiness.
>
> Correct. This is what I meant.

Meta
I leave the above in only to show that it is because of this that I
needed to change some of my statements above.
/Meta

>> Again what I think that you are missing is that
>> most of life's actions are actually of that form. The lives of most
>> people consist of a majority of actions each of which contribute a
>> small amount to their lifetime happiness (only minimally more than
>> some alternate action) and a very few actions that either increase or
>> decrease their lifetime happiness a great deal.
>
> I hadn't thought of this, previous to your pointing it out.

Even more, it is often impossible to tell beforehand whether a
choice/action will have little effect or will have a major effect. And
this is independent of the also important fact that the best planned
choices and actions may prove highly detrimental, if only because of
some chance or completely unforeseeable event which totally eliminates
any possibility of benefit. In the words of the Scottish poet Robbie
Burns: "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft a-gley,", which
translated into English says: "The best laid plans of mice and men go
oft astray" (a line in a famous poem: "TO A MOUSE - ON TURNING HER UP
IN HER NEST WITH THE PLOUGH"). Still, planning to the best of one's
ability using an amount of time appropriate to the reasonable
expectation of the likelihood of value gained or lost by the action,
is the best that can be done and is always better on average than no
planning at all.

Meta
Snipped more text either not requiring a response or not responded to by
Max/Steve.
/Meta

>> [And for me, I didn't learn how to have high confidence in myself (in
>> areas outside of a narrow range of work expertise) until after being
>> and "studying" with Paul for a few years. In fact, I think we were
>> both "studying" during the first 5 years in slightly different areas
>> areas of human interaction - and in actuality we continue to study
>> this aspect of reality all the time. **Kitty]
>
> I am very interested to know how you and Paul got into the habit of
> "studying" together. When I consider the activities for which I'd like
> to have a partner, *studying* is one of the activities that is
> foremost in my mind. I enjoy learning about, contemplating, and
> discussing reality, and one can only perform the latter if there is
> someone to discuss ideas *with* (much like we are doing in this
> forum). I think it's wonderful that Paul and Kitty each have a "study"
> partner. Most of the people I meet in my daily interactions don't
> think that "studying" is an enjoyable activity at all - which is
> depressing.

It is not only "depressing', not constantly attempting to better
understand reality (to study it) is contrary to life. Babies, toddlers
and young children are all enormously eager to learn everything about
the world in which they have recently come to exist. This is the
fundamentally natural human condition and method for maintenance and
promotion of life - to understand one's environment so that one can
control and mold it to optimally increase one's lifetime happiness. As
I argue in my essay about Social Meta-Needs, there really can be no
other possible purpose for any human, which is consistent with hir
nature in reality. How it can be that so many seemingly intelligent
people do not understand this, is beyond my comprehension. However, I
have given up being concerned about it, but instead look to associate
only with those for whom it is not so.

[This nature of very young children is one of the fascinations
experienced by parents/guardians who have chosen to be in that role. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to.
/Meta

>> Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
>> whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
>> not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
>> and having her physically with me most of the time.
>
> I had thought this to be the case: that the constant, physical
> presence of a certain person could make a large difference in my
> happiness. I'm glad to hear that you have experienced this, which
> helps to support my hypothesis. Note, I understand it is not simply
> the other person's physical presence that brings benefit, but also the
> fact that hir physical presence enables easier communication and a
> wider range of activities that can be done together, relative to the
> lack of hir physical presence.

Yes the immediate sharing of experiences and immediate ability to
comment and respond is what is mainly necessary. The physical nearness
is simply a necessary prerequisite for that immediacy, and when a
romantic relationship is also enough physical presence is "icing on the cake".

>> [I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.
**Kitty]
>
> I have been trying to discover why I get a bit depressed and feel
> relatively unmotivated for a period of a day or two about once per
> month. After having considered vitamin deficiencies (i.e. vitamin D
> supplementation), lack of exercise, and some other possible causes, I
> think that my lack of close friendship may be a large part of the cause.

Well you simply have to keep looking, never get "hard boiled"
(unreceptive and unopen to others) and never give up. As my mother used to say
to me when I was in my late teens and never had even had a
"girl friend": "your time will come". At age 22 I thought my time had
come when I married my first wife and two years later started a
family, only to have the whole thing fall apart 12 year later. Little
did I or my mother know when she told me that in the late 50's that it
would be more than 50 years before my time really did come (when I
found Kitty). Unfortunately my mother never lived to see it happen and
to meet Kitty.

In the meantime you must learn to do with many less complete relationships that
are each of benefit in an important but different
area of your life, and perhaps a few longer distance, less immediate
relationships that are more complete. Of course, you can also consider
relocating to where there exist one or more people with whom you do
have a more complete relationship. I have always been amazed (and
delighted, of course) that Kitty was so totally ready to leave a good
job, a husband, a lovely home, a climate and social environment she
had known for over 25 years, and even her native country, to join me
in my one bedroom apartment in downtown Toronto. Boy, did that tell me
how much she esteemed and loved me! (Note that I used both words
because so often today the word "love" is used without implying
concurrent great esteem - a usage totally irrational in my view.)

>> [My level of productive output is far greater since joining with Paul
>> than in the years prior. I think that it is essential for optimizing
>> one's lifetime happiness that a person have at least one relationship
>> with another human that has foundational values in common as well as
>> numerous other interests (lesser values); it may not include
>> romantic (sexual) emotions but these may be almost an "automatic"
>> consequence of the breadth and depth of the values that each finds in
>> the other. **Kitty]
>
> The above really is wonderful to read, as it illustrates what I have
> to look forward to, should I find the right person for me.

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to.
/Meta

>> What you need now is to
>> find one or more other groups of people with whom to have such tiny
>> perfect relationships.
>
> After reading the above, I think about the relationship I have with
> two women from my Organic Chemistry 2 class. I have studied with the
> two of them throughout this semester, and found it enjoyable at first.
> However, I found that most of the time I spent with them was
> unproductive with regard to studying the material. Instead, we would
> often talk about other topics, some I found to be a waste of my time
> (like the color one girl painted her toenails),

I am left to wonder about the type of girl that would even bring up a
topic of such minor importance and totally subjective value, particularly to a
man. Part of the trouble may be that you are likely
a little older (and certainly far more matured) than most of those in
your undergraduate class).

> while others were more
> interesting (such as the difficulty in discovering what type of skills
> one would enjoy to make a living).

This indecision about what young people want to do for a living seems
to be much more rampant in society than when I was in my teens. I
wonder if it is perhaps because there is so little of anything
practical and avocation related that is currently taught in the
schools.

Personally, I always knew that I wanted to work in the area of
mathematics, science and engineering. It was only later when I matured
much more that I realized the philosophy is really the basic of
everything and that the philosophical basic of mathematics and science
is of paramount important both to their usefulnes, but even to their
very meaning. Still later I realized that the human condition was so
inoptimal that social and psychological philosophy must necessarily be
my work. And since it is the hardest of all (at least to make progress
with change), it is also the most enjoyable to me - I have always
sought out the most difficult and most important task as also being
the most enjoyable to pursue as my major work.

>> For example we have such relationships with our
>> dance/music friends, but with most of them nothing beyond that. And with
>> Jack (who is the only poster to this group who is "local" to us) we do
>> not have a dance/music relationship but have several others of a deeper
>> nature. Tiny perfect relationships are what you have with store clerks
>> whom you get to know from frequenting certain stores and from others
>> with whom your daily activities brings you into contact. I do not go
>> so far as to call any of them "buddies" (I think associates would be a
>> better term or even simply friends) ,
>
> I thought you had previously discouraged the use of the word "friends"
> for those with which one has a limited relationship with. I agreed
> with this idea.

Yes, you are right about my previous discouragement. The reason for
that was a difference in the scope of the use of the term. I am very
cautious about who I call a friend (with nothing more stated), but if
I include another word, such as "dance friend", then I tend to use
"friend more loosely. But as I stated above, perhaps "associate" would
be a better term so that I could be more consistent and less ambiguous
in my usage. Since our main social activity right now is dancing,
while I and Kitty have very few friends (less than fingers of one
hand), we do have many, many (probably 20 or so) dance associates with
whom we converse in the limited way possible over the music (or even
just wave, hug - a few, or glad-hand) when we attend dance events.

[Paul gets more of these expressions of friendliness and admiration
from dancers than I do. Including hugs from young women. :>) **Kitty]


When we are in Ontario at the cottage, our social life is virtually
non-existent because there are no dance events anywhere near. But I
think neither of us really misses that lack of social life, since from
a real friendship pov the dance associate relationships are
inconsequential compared with the depth and breadth of our
relationship with each other.

>> I have had few buddies in my
>> lifetime and only one or two best buddies - none of the latter except
>> Kitty have ever remained in that status.
>
> I have always thought of the word "buddy" as the casual term for
> friend. It defines someone who is not a deep friend, but is also not
> simply an "acquaintance". Merriam-Webster seems to indicate both
> definitions (yours and mine):
>
> 1 a: companion , partner b: friend
> 2: fellow —used especially in informal address

Yup. It's another example of ambiguities in the English language - and
its getting worse every year - to the end result where every word will
mean the same as every other! Now won't *that* be a real tower of
Babel situation, particularly since everyone will still think that
they understand what the others are saying.
The phrase "buddy-buddy", in particular, as a description of closeness
definitely implies a strong and fairly complete friendship. To me a
"buddy" is someone upon whom you can really count when you need hir,
but then that is also true for a true friend. I also think that my
sense of its meaning was greatly influenced by some popular songs
using the term and perhaps some movies and fiction early in my youth,
which used the term. In addition, my boyhood dog was named "Buddy",
which naturally makes me think of a loyal and understanding companion.

>> [I would very much like to see more of our dance friends - a couple of
>> whom I know are members of MoreLife Yahoo but have never posted...-
>> deepen their understanding of the philosophical issues underlying
>> their frequently expressed dissatisfaction with current society. Most
>> are well aware that SelfSIP.org exists, but I do not think that very
>> many of them have even perused it, let alone studied it. So until they
>> do and begin having serious discussions with us (as does one
>> individual in person at most of the desert dance events) on the
>> principles that make up that website and MoreLife, we remain in a
>> tiny-perfect relationship.
>>
>> And as for retaining deep friendships over time, I think that those
>> that I and Paul have made in the past few years - yours being one of
>> the few - have happened almost certainly *because* of the philosophical
>> foundational basis that we have developed.
>
> Yes, I am very interested in the ideas, and I have found use for them
> (by being convinced of their accuracy) as I continuously modify my
> perception of reality. And the more I become convinced of the accuracy
> of these ideas with respect to reality, the more active I become in
> trying to influence others in considering such ideas. When trying to
> discuss ideas of importance to one's existence (i.e. happiness,
> value-for-value), I frequently get the impression that many people are
> a type of "zombie" - aimlessly roaming about their lives, applying no
> serious thought to their existence and living only to enjoy the next
> escapist activity ("escapist" is a great way to describe it - Kitty
> uses the word below).
>
>> Such a basis is something
>> that is missing currently in most relationships between people,
>
> Yes! I have also found this to be the case. It seems that nearly every
> person I interact with during my daily activities (and nearly everyone
> previously in my life) lacks a rational, philosophical basis for their
> existence. Rarely do I ever find a person who seems to have considered
> the meaning or purpose of their existence, let alone a person who
> thinks in the same ways as I do. It is difficult to have a close
> relationship with someone if they do not think about their life to the
> same degree, or in the same ways, as I do.
>
>> but
>> then for the very large numbers of people who never think beyond the
>> escapist activity for after work or the weekend, the longer term
>> friendships they maintain do not go very deep either. **Kitty]
>
> Agreed. And I think it quite possible that it is largely because the
> friendships they maintain have no philosophical basis, as you
> describe.
>
> I wonder if many organized religions (I'm thinking of Christianity)
> serve this purpose for many people - providing a philosophical basis
> around which people interpret their lives and give meaning to their
> relationships.
>
>>>> [There is another way to consider memories that elicit pleasant
>>>> thoughts about those previous times that include people for whom you
>>>> now have little in common as a result of your changed views on what is
>>>> important to you. As an example, I have personally found this to be
>>>> the case for numerous people, including ones to whom I am biologically
>>>> related. I still have very pleasant memories from many years ago, but
>>>> I have no desire to interact with these individuals now based on their
>>>> later - and even in some cases fairly recent - demonstrations of
>>>> values that are diametrically opposed to mine. One individual has even
>>>> clearly expressed a wish that I be harmed, but I still have many fond
>>>> memories of him that cover about 23 years. In contrast, I spend
>>>> virtually no time wishing that he, as well as the others, were
>>>> different since that is a waste of my time. **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> I think it is an excellent conclusion you have come to - that it is a
>>> waste of your time to wish that these people were different. There are a
>>> couple people in my life whom I occasionally think about, and I think it
>>> is a waste of my time to do so. Again, I have a difficult time holding a
>>> firm conclusion about these people, and sometimes contact them to see
>>> how they are doing or to influence them.
>>>
>> You might instead realize that if they really had changed/improved, then
>> they would contact you (as long as you have made yourself publicly
>> available), and *that* is why it is a waste of your time.
>
> This *is* a good point: if a person had really changed "for the
> better", they would be motivated to contact me again. OTOH ("on the
> other hand", for those unfamiliar with this acronym), I think there
> are some people who are interested in changing/improving, but need
> encouragement to do so. These are the types of people I am inclined to
> want to "check-up on".

I agree, and an occasional "check-up" would show that you care, which
should give them both more confidence in their own worth and more
appreciation for your worth and ideas, both of which should help them
change in the right direction. Unfortunately, very few of the people
that I have ever "written off" had shown any willingness to change or
any thought that I might possibly be correct, and them wrong.

> On the contrary, I know of some people who have
> convinced me that they are *unwilling* to change/improve, and these
> people I make no effort to contact.
>
>> This is my
>> approach to my sister and my daughter both of whom totally severed
>> relations with me about 8 years ago.
>>
>> [Ah, yes. Then there is the relationship with my son Andy (who goes by
>> the name Andrew, although it is actually Edward Andreas), and also
>> with his father and my former husband, Ed. Sometime in the future I
>> will have a Kitty Reflects entry that addresses this situation, which
>> is one where both those individuals have severed relations with me. **Kitty]
>
> I am interested in reading about this Kitty Reflects entry that you
> describe above. I often wonder if *I* will be the one to sever
> relations with most of my family, or *them*. I don't know if it is
> necessary for me to formally "sever" relations with my family.

Unless such people continue to bother you, then any such formal
"severing" is quite unnecessary. It would only be useful if you are
stating all the reasons in order to give them one last chance to
change (and that would be only useful if you really do think there
still is some chance for change). I have done this a few times,
particularly when I had had some previous good relationships with such
people (or so I thought), but it has never worked to effect any
change.

> Instead, I would simply not interact with them. I think this would be
> the best thing to do with most people, since there is always the
> possibility that they will change, at which point I would *want* to
> speak with them again.

I don't think that actually clearly telling them that you were
severing relations with them would preclude them coming back to you
again.

In most situations where a person has stopped interacting with me it
has been clear to me that they do not wish to hear from me again, so I do not
try to contact them. Partly this is because in most of these
same situations, even though the other party ceased/broke off the
relationship, I was nevertheless convinced that the major part of the
harm within the relationship was from them harming me, and they broke
off the relationship because they would not accept my contention. With
such people I do not try to restart things since I think that unless
they first see the light and apologize to me, any attempted contact on
my part would be effectively admitting that I had changed my mind and
now accepted their previous action as at least tolerable. This is the
essential situation with my daughter. With my sister, just "down the road" in
Tuscon, the situation is different. She has apparently broken off the
relationship with me in order to side with my daughter, to
whom she has always been very close as a kind of surrogate mother. I
have sent her a birthday card and one other contact over the last 7
years, and I even got an email from her husband (new, so we never knew
each other well) about the death of their pet dog, which I knew well, but there
has never been any response from anything that I have sent
to them. In my experience, each case of a break-off of an old
long-term relationship is highly unique and needs to be considered
separately.

> But, if I had stopped initiating interaction
> with a person because I decided that hir characteristics did not
> benefit me, then I would wait for *them* to initiate interaction with
> me, as it may be an indication that they've changed (similar to the
> discussion on this above).

Don't forget that most people have such busy lives and so many others
around them to interact with that they don't even think about long
gone people that they once knew. OTOH, if this takes place then it
clearly means that they did not see anything really special about you
to remember and to want back again. So the continuing disconnection is
probably in your own best interest anyway.

Although I still feel sadness for what might have been, that is the
way that I currently think of my daughter - I am convinced that she
never did really understand and appreciate my most important and
self-cherished qualities (and those which Kitty so quickly saw,
understood and esteemed). As for my older brother and younger sister,
each in their own way they too never appreciated me for what I really
am (but, of course, they might say the same in reverse). So I have
determined through experience that it is best to forget these
potentially good but broken past relationships and simply continue to
be open to new people coming along who *do* appreciate the qualities
that you most cherish about yourself.

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to and text about exercise
physiology,biochemistry and psychology, to which I will respond in part 2
/Meta

>>>>> It brings me happiness. However, does
>>>>> the long-term negative consequences associated with weight-lifting
>>>>> out-weigh the happiness I derive from it over my lifetime? The
>>>>> answer to this is difficult for me to decide upon.
>>>>>
>>>> As long as you are certain that the happiness you derive from any
>>>> activity is fully reasonable, then you should not totally eliminate
>>>> it unless it is very clearly of major harm. OTOH, I cannot see how
>>>> it would be possible to rationally continue to enjoy something that
>>>> is harmful.
>>>>
>>> Right, I agree. I think Nathaniel Branden explained this well in the
>>> books of his I have read so far. The idea I got from him was that
>>> continuing to enjoy (or participate) in something that is clearly
>>> harmful harms one's self-esteem - and for good reason. One some level of
>>> consciousness, one is aware that one's behavior is self-destructive, and
>>> is good reason to be disappointed in one's behavior, and essentially, in
>>> one's self.
>>>
>> Yes. In the end it is the self-contradiction that is destructive - which
>> is a point that I made above.
>>
>> [This addresses part of the reason why self-esteem must be
>> self-acquired/earned - it cannot be given to someone. Parents *can*
>> stifle it in younger children (and unfortunately many do) but older
>> children and adults must acquire it for themselves. Others can be
>> sought for their assistance in understanding how to do this, but the
>> individual *must* acquire hir own self-esteem. So statements by
>> teachers and schools about ensuring that a child have self-esteem are
>> muddled in lack of understanding of the concept itself. **Kitty]
>
> Yes, it is clear that one must develop one's self-esteem for
> themselves. To say that "teachers and schools must ensure" the
> development of self-esteem may not make sense. However, it could mean
> that teachers and schools should understand self-esteem and its
> development, and encourage children to think about themselves in a way
> that is conducive to the development of self-esteem. I think this
> would be appropriate, but I estimate many teachers and schools far
> fall short of this goal.

[Making sure that children and young people have the natural
opportunities for self-responsibility will provide them with the
opportunities for building and nurturing their own self-esteem. And
here is where governments have created the problem they then try to
"solve". This can be a whole 'nother thread. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>> [In your case, Steve, from what I read, you are motivated to do a
>>>> thorough assessment. Based on your reported actions, I think you will
>>>> be successful in making the choice that will best optimize your
>>>> lifetime happiness. **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the encouragement Kitty *warm smiles*. I read your
>>> encouragement at an ironic time -- just after I was lamenting above
>>> how there are very few people in my life from whom I would enjoy
>>> encouragement. So the timing was excellent *big laughs*.
>>>
>> [I could say this about my "previous life" too. Outside of my
>> employment work and its aspects, there was only 1 person with whom I
>> could discuss most of the highly important areas of life including of
>> course philosophy - my former husband's regular comment was "What's to
>> discuss? It's obvious."
>
> I estimate that that kind of outlook about life made for shallow
> conversation.

[You bet! And was a major deteriorating factor in the relationship.
The initial reason for our introduction to each other by mutual
friends was that we both admired/read Ayn Rand, but it took a number
of years for me to realize that this "admiration" was not particularly
philosophically deep on Ed's part. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>>> I have been trying to evaluate
>>>>> all of my preferences and behaviors in this manner and have begun to
>>>>> feel ambivalent about nearly everything I enjoy. Most habits have
>>>>> positive and negative aspects related to each of them.
>>>>>
>>>> Sometimes the negative effects can be reduced or eliminated entirely by
>>>> practicing moderation in the activity. However, there are many activities,
>>>> particularly mental ones, that have no negative aspects other than the
>>>> use of your limited amount of time. I think that you need to develop
>>>> many more enjoyable mental activities and only do physical ones to the
>>>> extent necessary to stay healthy - which is actually very little once
>>>> you are on a CR and fasting protein cycling diet.
>>>>
>>> I think your suggestion above is accurate and useful for me. I do find
>>> that I feel physically well nearly every day, and am ill very
>>> infrequently, which indicates that I am in good health. However, I do
>>> find that I get "bored" fairly often - when I'm not busy with
>>> schoolwork. I think this boredom is a function of the limited number
>>> of mental activities I engage in - just what you noted above.
>>>
>> Frankly, any such notion of "boredom" is something that I have *never*
>> experienced (except when in a restricted situation not of my own
>> choosing), so I do not have much understanding of what your problem is.
>> In fact, your statement causes me some irritation because I can think
>> of no better mental stimulation than reading and attempting to
>> understand the material on the SelfSIP website, which action and the
>> ensuing questions and discussions would, in addition, be the best
>> possible return of value that you, as a friend, could do for me.
>
> Good point. I have deeply considered your above comments about boredom
> in the past several days, and I have discovered some important ideas.
>
> First, after evaluating whether I was really experiencing "boredom", I
> realized that what I had called "boredom" above was actually my
> indecisiveness in choosing an activity (which I discussed in earlier
> comments in this message). That is, I had called "boredom", my state
> of "not knowing what to do with myself", even though I knew there were
> many things I *wanted* to do.

If, after a little consideration, you can't decide what activity to do
next, then it is a waste of time to continue trying to decide. Simply
use your *whim* and pick any one of the choices and *get at it*. It is
*not* always necessary to have carefully calculated all the pros and
cons to death before you take action and it is not always necessary to
have a full rational justification for every action that you take.
Life is simply too short and full for that. It is perfectly okay to
sometimes act just because you "felt like it". Particularly this is
correct if you constantly work to get your "feelings" to be consistent
with your consciously held principles and methods. Just getting
started and doing the activity is often more happiness conducive than
spending addition precious time in evaluating.

When you need a break from that one activity (usually it is best to
take breaks because the subconscious will proceed with the thinking
anyway), then *get at another one*, preferably one that uses a
different combination of your body and mind. It is like one of the
humorous dance songs says: "What fxxk are y'all standing around for?
Get in there and DANCE!!"

> Second, I realized that perhaps I have developed the habit of enjoying
> the feeling of being "entertained", without my effort. That is,
> throughout my life I, my acquaintances and family, have often
> participated in (or more appropriately, "surrendered to") activities
> such as watching movies, television, or playing video games.

Unfortunately this is true for the vast majority of people in current
society. It is why the government has so little problem with protests
to its actions. This keeping the masses happy was the function of
gladiator tournaments in ancient Rome, whence the notion that
providing "bread and circuses" is all that is necessary to keep a
dictatorial regime in power.

> The form
> of entertainment that I often engaged in is video games.

Video games are, at least, active rather than totally passive. I find
the logical, non-action games (such as patience and sudoku) to be
mentally stimulating and a pleasant diversion at times. Although I
must admit that playing them a lot is also a sign to me that there is
something else important that I really ought to get done, but find
somewhat unpleasant in its immediate execution work.

> This form of
> entertainment grew into a habit, an activity I would engage in at the
> end of the day, usually in the last hour or two of being awake, as I
> was becoming sleepy.

I have also been in the same state with respect to the game Patience
(particularly related to the reason described above), but I eventually
get out of it and I no longer beat myself up over it as I often used
to do about such things (which then made things worse). IOW, I have
learned to forgive myself for my indulgences and, lo and behold,
because of that I actually indulge far less often. I have been working
on the wiki stuff so diligently (and enjoying it so much) that I have
not played patience or sudoku in weeks now.

> While I think there are a number of positive effects I benefit from my
> previous playing of video games, in the past I have clearly spent too
> much time playing them. I have made a strong effort in changing this
> habit in the past several years, and especially in the past year. I
> recognize video games to be enjoyable to me, and they can be
> mentally-stimulating, relaxing, or motivating. But recently I have
> noticed that I too often play them for their entertainment value -
> their ability to stimulate my mind without my effort. I realized this
> and decided that it was not the way I wanted to live my life - being
> one of those "zombies" I mentioned above.

Mentally stimulating games are not all bad, but you might try finding
games where the stimulation comes from yourself directing the game
rather than the game directing and entertaining you.

> So I think part of my admission of being bored is related to my
> slipping back into this bad habit of having the desire to be
> entertained.

You seem to be missing the point that the purpose of all action is
happiness. Entertainment is merely one means to gaining pleasure,
which is a very important form of happiness. You need to learn that
there is nothing more pleasurable than the experience of your own mind
reading, thinking and understanding.

> Instead, I am beginning to find ways by which to feel
> rewarded and happy while being productive. The main way by which I
> feel rewarded by being productive is that, by being productive, I am
> working to improve my life - an effort that I am proud of and that
> brings me happiness.

Ah, but that is far too distant and theoretical a goal for you to be
able to sustain it. You must also enormously enjoy the immediate
activity and derive great pleasure from each step. Otherwise, as I
said you will not be able to sustain your efforts. I made that mistake
many years ago, but it is now why the vast majority of time is spent
doing things which I intrinsically enjoy as I go along (as well as the
completed product of course). I could not possibly do that wiki
development work if I were only thinking of the end result as being
beneficial. It is imperative to get great pleasure from all the
intermediate steps.
In fact, that is why I do little exercising per se (none at all this
year in Casa Grande), I dislike the process even though I realize that
the end result is beneficial to my health. I would be so much happier
to simply do only dancing or go for long interesting hikes (but I find
the very local desert environment here to have insufficient interest).

> Furthermore, after recognizing the above about myself, I have found it
> very apparent that the great majority of people I am acquainted with
> to have what I call an "entertainment addiction". This might be
> similar to what Kitty describes as frequent engagement in "escapist
> activities".

Yes, it is. Entertainment is an escape from having to think and focus
one's mind on important things in life/reality. It is what Ayn Rand
termed "blank out". Or in the words of the Alfred E. Neuman character
"What, me worry?"

> It is very disturbing to me how apparently little time
> nearly all of my acquaintances spend on studying, self-improvement,
> and productive work, and instead participate in some of the most
> meaningless, random, and even foolish activities.

I maintain the major reason for this (and the shame of it) is because
they were never taught and helped to experience the enormous pleasure
to be gained from the efficacious use of one's mind. One cannot change
the behavior of anyone by merely trying to persuade them that if they
do odious tasks A, B and C (or for some even if these are merely less
enjoyable tasks than D, E and F), then the result will be an
ecstatically wonderful end result G. Rather, they must also highly
enjoy (for most and at least somewhat for all) the intermediate tasks
that end in G.

> When I observe such
> behavior in others, it illustrates to me the huge disparity between my
> philosophies and those of my acquaintances. At first, this disparity
> is very depressing to me. However, I understand that not all people
> are like the majority of those I am currently acquainted with, and
> also, that I am not acquainted with very many people. So, I will
> continue searching for others with philosophies similar to my own,
> while appreciating my current relationships with those I respect.

This it the only thing to do. Finding others more like yourself is
your best road to happiness. But not total clones, else nothing new
and different will be forthcoming. While I and Kitty are very close,
we are nevertheless different enough to be able to provide stimulating
ideas to one another.

>> [Henry Hazlitt's book "Thinking as a Science" is particularly great in
>> the chapter where he discusses the idea of simply doing purposeful
>> thinking and the value that can provide. The fact that so few people
>> actually do it these days is not surprising since the common
>> distractions of reading material and computers abound. But this has
>> definitely been to the detriment of acquiring the ability to develop
>> and hone one's own thinking skills so that s/he can, in part, better
>> assess and, if determined warranted, can assimilate what s/he does
>> read and hear. In addition, by being able to *really* think, one can
>> originate ideas that others have missed by just not noticing existing
>> relationships.  **Kitty]
>
> Sounds like a good book. I have tried to look for it on Audible.com
> and did not find it.

It is far too obscure and intellectual to find there. Besides I cannot
believe that you could get much from merely listening to someone else
reading it.You need to be able to study the written words and deeply
think about them in order to fully comprehend them and see their
fundamental truths.

> I will have to look for it at the UT and Toledo libraries.

I also doubt that either of them will have this book. But there is no
need, except to have a handier copy, since the full book is available
for downloading at: http://mises.org/books/thinking.pdf

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>> [Reprogramming one's emotions is not quickly done, but rather can take
>>>> many months. And even then there will likely be times years later that
>>>> a "reminder" pleasurable emotion will occur with an activity or person
>>>> that has been determined to be rationally negative. (Many former
>>>> smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers report this to be the case.) **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> I also occasionally experience this related to eating too-large of
>>> portions of treats.
>>>
>> [Me too ;>) **Kitty]
>
> *Laughs*. That's good to know I'm not the only one who makes a great
> effort and still struggles with this. Although, I hope your indulging
> in treats is not to the point it is detrimental to your long-term
> health (as I hope mine are also not).

No, the occasions are infrequent and small enough in quantity that I
am highly confident that no detriment from them will occur. :>) **Kitty]

Meta
This is the separated second part of my response to the previous, much
too large message.
/Meta

On 04/05/2009 09:22 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> However, our
>>>>> previous discussions on the topic of building muscle and strength
>>>>> has made me question my preference for lifting weights.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Lifting weights may be of more value to the elderly to oppose sarcopenia
>>>> and reduction of bone density/strength, but I do not see it to be of as
>>>> good health/longevity value for younger people as are many other kinds
>>>> of exercise. In addition, I cannot see why pure physical grunt work is
>>>> as enjoyable as applying the same physical labor to something inherently
>>>> useful in its accomplishment.
>>>>
>>> I have thought about your paragraph above quite a bit in the last few
>>> days. I have concluded that I lift weights to provide me with a more
>>> systematic protocol for maintaining my strength.
>>>
>> By why do you want to maintain this strength to a greater degree than
>> would naturally happen from the activities mentioned below?
>>
>
> I think that if I maintain my strength to a level slightly *above* the
> point my current activities require, I would be less likely to have
> accidents (i.e. falling off my bike, which I ride frequently).

This is true, but what you do not realize is that the body does that
naturally (ie maintains level of strength sufficiently in excess of
normal activity levels to enable the needed occasional excursions and
to prevent accidents). You do not have to attempt to order and direct
from on-high what is an age-old far more optimally ordering system
than you can possibly do with your conscious mind based on very
limited knowledge of its detailed intricacies. What you are trying to
do for your body is much the same as governments trying to direct the
naturally self-ordering free market. This is far different than what I
am doing with respect to my nutrition and supplements. Here I am simply
providing to the body everything that I think might be useful to
it. The body is left to its own decision making whether and how much to
use that which I provide for it. My view is that the body knows best -
at least at the present level of knowledge - and will do far better
than anything that I can currently direct it to do.

> Having
> a level of strength that is slightly higher than what is required for
> daily living would make me safer than being at a level that was lower
> than what is required.

Yes, except that if your daily living activities are not enormously
variable in strength requirements, then it is simply impossible for
your strength to be too low to do them effectively and safely, with
the possible exception of when a person is very old. As I said above
and previously, the body will look after itself extremely well if you
simply give it the necessary substrate, are sensitive to its wants for
activity and leave it look after itself.

Kitty and I were discussing this need for exercise and strength
training as a readiness factor and the only current occupation in
which we could see that as necessary was with firemen and emergency
rescue personnel. These people are often doing nothing relative to
their direct work for many days (or even sometimes weeks) and then are
suddenly required to have enormous strength, stamina and endurance.
Therefore, it is imperative that they be in constant training to be in
a state of readiness for such a crisis situation.

> Should I be at a level of strength that is
> lower, or even with, what is required for my daily activities,

The normal healthy young body *cannot* be in such a state, unless
after a period of sickness and/or other cessation of those daily
activities.

> I think
> I would often struggle with activities, which may put me at risk of
> harm.

Forget this "possibility", since it cannot happen!!

> OTOH, it may be that, if I must struggle a little with some daily
> activities, I would benefit from the increased exertion required to
> execute those activities (should I have an overall lower level of
> strength). I didn't think of this before you asked.

That is correct. You *can* only struggle with some activities that are
in fact quite a bit *above* those of your normal daily level. And to
the extent that you do start doing such activities and struggling a
bit with them, then in no time at all (2 or 3 weeks at most) your
strength will increase above the level necessary so that you are no
longer struggling. You will effectively have increased the level of
your daily activities to a higher plateau.

>>> I do take many
>>> opportunities to do something useful with my labor, such as chopping
>>> wood for my parents' wood burner when I lived with them to contribute to
>>> the household, as well as riding my bike to class instead of driving.
>>> However, from my understanding of the many muscle groups and ranges of
>>> motion in the body, I would be neglecting many of them if I only engaged
>>> in "useful" physical labor. For example, I have noticed that my hip
>>> flexors are quite weak, and I can not hold my leg straight out in front
>>> of me for very long before my hip flexors become very fatigued. I
>>> understand hip flexors to be important for posture and for avoiding
>>> falls, so I want to correct this.
>>>
>> You are "putting the cart before the horse".
>
> Perhaps I am. However, WRT some muscle groups, I understood that a
> level of strength that is greater than the minimum necessary will
> lower the risk of accidental injury.

Yes, but the healthy young body maintains that naturally without any
special attention and "forcing" on your part.

>> If you do maintain your
>> good posture, then those muscles necessary to do so will automatically
>> be maintained sufficiently to do so.

Note that I have been saying the same thing all along, but you still
are not getting the message (or perhaps simply don't "believe" me).
Once again the healthy young body is an enormously complex and highly
optimal self-ordering system in all its aspects. All that it needs is
the right substrate (nutrients), environment  (sleep, clean air,
appropriate temperature and humidity) and stimulation (constant daily
physical and mental activities appropriate to the state that it needs
to be in for your ongoing requirements of it) and then to be left
alone to work its own amazing and wondrous self-ordering processes. It
is totally arrogant of anyone to think that s/he knows better than
millions of years of evolutionary development about what the body
should be doing. Note that I am talking here about the normal healthy
young body that is in a high state of homeostasis. I am not talking
about diseased states including aging decline and dysfunction. In the
short run the body knows best, but in the much longer run (dozens of
years) then it will have to be tweaked in many ways to prevent so much
change that the potential for homeostasis is eventually lost.

>> [All that would be needed in addition, is some stretching activities.
>> The subject of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise is one for another
>> post (beyond what I say further below) if you or someone else wish to
>> pursue it. **Kitty]
>>
>>> However, I don't think my current
>>> bike-riding will help very much with this weakness.
>>>
>> What weakness? Do you have bad posture? Do you fall easily?
>
> I was referring to my hip flexors. However, after considering this
> more, I think I may simply have the impression that I should be
> stronger than I need to be.

You certainly do. Worse, you have this crazy idea that *you* must
order your body what to do because it (your body) is too stupid to
know how to look after itself. Instead, you need to do less thinking
and ordering and more listening and observing. I do not "exercise" at
all and my body, even at 71, still responds beautifully to the need
for a high rate of activity.

[An explanation - we have not this 6 months in AZ made use of the
exercise equipment in our basement. We have been so busy that we
haven't wanted to take the time to do so and Paul does not enjoy it
anyway. I've instead a number of times purposely gone out in the yard
to do maintenance work just to breakup the computer sets and at times
Paul has joined me. (We have some of the best manicured creosote
bushes around and the remaining rose bushes are in plentiful bloom
right now.) Despite this lack of purposeful artificial exercise, we
have not at all lacked for lots of energy when dancing at numerous
regular and special events. Remember, we make use of all the
opportunities for natural exercise everyday and they are numerous. Our
every 3 month order from LEF just arrived and there was lots of
lifting, bending, stretching, stair climbing with just that! **Kitty]

> Taking the time and effort to maintain
> this greater level of strength than is required is just a waste of my
> time.

Absolutely! I hope that you will really start to understand that and
respond to it. There are so many other important and much more
mentally stimulating things to do with the time.

>>> So my weight lifting protocol is to target those muscle groups that
>>> I don't normally use (which is many of them).
>>>
>> So what?
>
> From my understanding, muscle mass and strength decline with age and
> non-use.

Not until much later years, not likely till 80-90 plus if you maintain
excellent health. Certainly at 71+ I still have no sign of any such
aging decline. In any case if you do not use them, then what does it
matter if they decline in strength beyond just above what is required
for your normal daily activities? As for muscle *mass*, I can only see
negatives to any rational evaluation of that.

> Those muscles that decline in strength the quickest are those
> that are used the least. To prevent having problems with any muscle
> group that I do not normally use, I thought it would be prudent to
> design an exercise routine that would target the muscle groups that I
> rarely use.

I am getting tired of having to repeat myself. Once again what does it
matter if you lose strength in those muscles which you use very little
in daily activities and only maintains a little more than sufficient
strength for those activities, which, as I said before, the body will
do quite will without your *enforcement*, thank you.

> Besides my bike riding, I currently exercise a very narrow
> range of muscle groups (just some standing and sitting at the lab I
> work in). Because of this limited variation in the muscle groups I
> use, I thought I should make an effort to maintain the muscles I don't
> use, in case I wish to use them in the future, or in the event that I
> do not use those muscle groups for a long period of time.

In that case (you are about to significantly change your level of
activities) you can either get them ready beforehand by exercising
them or simply do so "on the job" when the time arrives. I am reminded
here of the old Chinese Kung-fu martial arts movies, where a young lad
comes to the Shoalin temple to learn martial arts and they accept him,
but all he is told to do is to clean the whole place from top to
bottom. Of course, this is all very hard work carrying large water
pails, washing floors, etc, (all important muscle groups, I expect)
and he struggles with it very unhappily because he so wanted to learn
martial arts and become an expert fighter (often to right a wrong done
to his family). However as the picture progresses we soon see him
lifting the pails and washing the floors with speed, joy and high
agility and ability. He is *now* ready to begin martial arts training!
Again the body will do what is appropriate to your situation if you
only provide the situation and leave it to do so.

>> Unless you are planning on major changes to the muscular
>> activities that you require to accomplish the goals of your life, then
>> why do you need to prepare muscles for such tasks?
>
> I am not sure which muscles I will need for the tasks in my future, so
> I thought a generally high level of strength would keep me prepared
> for anything.

Wait until you know if you will need some more muscles rather than
wasting your time (not to mention stressing your whole system
unnecessarily) preparing for something that may never come.

>> Any healthy young
>> person will automatically exercise the muscles needed in hir daily
>> activities to the extent to which such exercise is needed to accomplish
>> such activities. Hell, even at the ages of me and Kitty, we do not do
>> any special exercises to prepare our muscles for the strenuous dancing
>> that we do
>
> I thought I saw pictures of Paul lifting weights on Morelife.org.

No. The only weights I ever use are 5 lb hand dumbbells, one in each
hand when I am running or dancing around the basement and swinging my
arms around. My upper body strength is a bit lower than I would like
by which I mean it is not really sufficient to do some lifting
activities that I am very occasionally (once every few months) called
on to do. Unfortunately, I do not do these frequently enough that my
body keeps itself read for them (not like my dancing, which I only do
it once a week but my body keeps fully ready for). If you have some
such exercise then it would perhaps make sense to exercise to keep
your strength ready for it. But I really don't have the interest in
doing so. I can either simply struggle with those occasional
activities (not a big deal and soon over with) or I can use a carrying
cart, levers or get help from Kitty. It is not worth all the ]
preparation time to have the strength ready to do them since it is not
a matter of life and death.

>> (Kitty describes her exception to this below). It happens
>> automatically through the activity. The secret is to have sufficiently
>> repetitive activity of the kinds that you want to do, rather than be a
>> once a month warrior. For us it appears that weekly high energy
>> dancing is sufficient. For myself I have always been able to keep in
>> excellent physical shape without exercise and then respond well to
>> strenuous work. Of course, I do walk around the house a bit (and even
>> dance occasionally), perform property/house maintenance tasks (3.5
>> acres in AZ), walk in the yard and take the steps two at a time
>> whenever I come up from the (AZ) basement.
>
> It does sound as though you get adequate exercise that includes work
> for various muscle groups. I had the impression that my normal
> activities excluded certain muscle groups. However, I'm beginning to
> think that my non-use of these muscles is not such a big deal,
> especially considering that I expect to be involved in many, many
> home-improvement projects in the next few months, which will give me
> the opportunity to use a variety of muscle groups. I may continue to
> do such a workout routine as I described, but perhaps I would only do
> it once per month (i.e. a fraction of the time I have in the past), as
> this may be sufficient to maintain a useful level of strength.

Now you are thinking more the right way. Your body will respond to
produce the necessary strength when and as necessary.

> I also just realized that I may be overcompensating with regard to the
> prevention of sarcopenia. This could be especially true in my case,
> since I have previously spent a large amount of time and effort
> developing muscle mass.

And that muscle mass is a continuous drain on the servicing resources
of your body. You would be better rid of it.

> So, while it is true that I can expect to lose
> muscle mass as I grow older (regenerative medicine notwithstanding),

Not until many decades from now and perhaps not then if you use the
correct prevention methods. You are taking what is true for the
average person on the SAD (standard american diet) as *necessarily*
being also true for you!! I *never* accept what is true for the
average person as being true for me. I am a unique individual in every
way and am determined to continue to be far different than the
average. Who wants to be average? - YUCK!!

[Especially when the average is derived with currently so many in such poor
state of physical well-being. **Kitty]

> at this point, I start this "decline" process from a higher level of
> muscular development. Because of this, it may be that I need to invest
> *less* time in muscle maintenance than a person who has attained much
> less muscle mass at the same age.

Again you are planning too much (yes one *can* plan too much,
particularly when you have so little knowledge and control over what
will happen in the future). You have bought into a bill of goods on
this silly notion that sarcopenia for no good reason must necessary
happen to everyone. Nonsense!

>> [My daily "artificial" exercise is mentioned near the very bottom of
>> our Mental/Physical Activities page -
>> http://morelife.org/personal/physacts.html
>
> I tried several times to find the link above. I finally found what I
> think you were referring to (and what I was referring to when I stated
> that I saw Paul lifting weights). Here is the link:
> morelife.org/personal/health/physacts.html. Note that it appears you
> forgot the "health" subfolder after the "personal" subfolder.

The dumbbells that you seen in my hands in the one picture are the 5
lbs ones mentioned above (hardly lifting weights). However, while I
did last winter here (2007-2008) use the gym equipment downstairs
reasonably often (still disliking it but mainly accompany Kitty who
enjoys it more), this last winter I have had far more important things
to do and neither of us have been down to use the basement gym once or
even fast walked/jogged around the block for that matter. I am
particularly negative on doing the exercise because I find that not
doing so (as this year) makes no difference on my readiness ability
to dance very hard and long when I feel like it and get the chance. So
if there is no sign of benefit and need of the exercise then why
should I waste my time (and time of very reduced happiness rate) doing
it?

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> I want to clarify my weight lifting protocol for this discussion, since
>>> the term "weight-lifting" can be associated with many degrees of
>>> intensity. I currently lift weights for about 20 minutes, three times
>>> per week. During those sessions I do exercises involving my body weight
>>> (push-up derivatives, sit-ups), and some other exercises with 15 or 30
>>> lbs in each hand, depending on the exercise. I do not have a goal of
>>> lifting an enormous amount of weight, which can be very stressful on the
>>> immune system and joints. Instead, during my workouts I try to
>>> systematically "challenge" those muscle groups which are otherwise
>>> neglected by my daily activities. Some important areas to me are my
>>> shoulders (I had a shoulder injury due to a fall several years ago, and
>>> the resistance training helps), my lower back (which hurt in the past
>>> due to my sitting at a computer hunched-over for long hours - resistance
>>> training has improved this also),
>>>
>> These last two are reasonable (similar to Kitty's exception above) if
>> you still have weaknesses/problems related to those areas.
>
> I have noticed that these problems have gone away with continued
> weightlifting. I notice that if I do not lift weights for several
> weeks I begin to feel lower back pain again.

If this were not fixable by any other method then it would be a good
reason to lift weights. However, I think it is more likely that this
is a result of your high BMI (due to all the muscle mass sitting
there) combined with bad posture or at least insufficient constant
attention on your posture - head high, chest out, belly in, back
straight, bounce in your step, air of great lighlness and confidence.
Think of the image of Howard Roark - and can you ever imagine him
*exercising*?? NO. he had no need of it. His body was always ready
because his mind and spirit was. (Mind you, he also needed to provide
it with good nutrition, something unfortunately for her about which
Ayn Rand knew nothing and paid for it by death at a far too early age.)

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> There is one other possible positive aspect of weightlifting that helps
>>> me to justify to myself my current weight lifting protocol. I also have
>>> a hypothesis that weight lifting while restricting calories (which is
>>> what I do) will improve autophagic proteolysis and protein recycling.
>>>
>> Not any more than any other activity which requires energy. It is a pure
>> calorie balance situation and the source from which the energy can come.
>> See the current thread "vigorous exercise followed by single meal" for
>> details.
>
> I have read this, and I agree that protein recycling is partly a
> function of energy requirement. However, I understand weight lifting
> to have a higher protein requirement than aerobic exercise.

Only because weight lifting is more damaging to proteins, but that is
not any kind of benefit. The proteins that it damages and has to
recycle are not the functional proteins that contribute to aging
dysfunction (those are mostly structural and enzyme proteins). If
anything, the aerobic exercise should promote more building of new
enzymes because these are part of the necessary pathways of aerobic
metabolism and energy production. Aerobic exercise is much more
related to the whole body and to the energy production mechanisms than
is weight lifting. That is why it has been shown to be more health
promoting in general than weight lifting.

> Additionally, I understand the act of weight lifting to increase
> protein requirement for muscle repair *after* exercise, and hence,
> would be more effective at enhancing protein recycling than aerobic
> exercise alone.

Yes, weight lifting is a great way to first damage your specific
muscle fiber proteins, to break them down to their component amino
acids and to then use those amino acids to construct new proteins to
replace the ones that were damaged and eliminated. Now I ask you to
explain to me what good does this do for you? More specifically, in
what way does it promote longevity?

>>> I found one article that found that, after a fasted weight lifting
>>> session, protein synthesis was greater than protein degradation. From my
>>> limited understanding of protein balance, this would require the body to
>>> use its current sources of nitrogen and amino acids to have a positive
>>> protein synthesis value in the fasted state.
>>>
>> Yes, but not any source of nitrogen that is not in the form of an amino
>> acid, since the body cannot build amino acids from scratch. And the
>> amino acids are only needed for protein building - not for
>> gluconeogenesis for energy production.
>
> Hmm, I did not know this is the way it works. I still have plenty of
> biochemistry reading to do!

In rereading my statements above, I don't think I was sufficiently
clear. Let me try again.
1) The human body cannot use any form of nitrogen which is not part of
an amine group of an amino acid for any anabolic purposes, although it
does make great use of other nitrogen compounds, notably NO.
2) The human body cannot make any amino acids from other nitrogen
compounds, although it has a limited ability to transform some amino
acids into others. But this still leaves about 20 unique amino acids
which it must get from food and these are what are called "essential".
3) OTOH, the human body does not need much of these amino acids in its
daily diet because it can simply recycle the ones in the proteins that
it has on board. This is so as long as it is not forced by lack of
sufficient energy sources in carbs and fats to turn those on-board
amino acids into fuel and thereby make them no longer available for
protein regeneration.
4) Note that while it is generally stated that the human body does not
store amino acids as it does both carbs and fats (which makes many
people think that one must have a constant daily input of them - I
used to think that), this is highly misleading if not dead wrong! In
fact, the body does have an enormous store of amino acids since it is
composed mostly of proteins the components of which are all amino
acids. One can look at proteins as the store of amino acids in the
same way that fat cells are the store of fatty acids and glycogen is
the store of glucose.
Yes is true that amino acids from proteolysis are not as quickly
available as is glucose from glycogen (fatty acids from fat cells is
somewhere in between). But so what? If your body need the amino acids
from proteolysis then this will cause the proteolysis to be
upregulated and to produce them. That is the purpose and mechanism of
fasting macroautophagy and proteolysis. Not all of them are used for
fuel by any means.

Meta
Note that at this point, I have decided that I am really, really
getting tired of this discussion, which is not anything in which I am
highly interested. So I am going to skip all of what follows to get
through with this response and I will not be responding again to this
part of the thread, unless there are responses from others which
contain grave errors and misunderstandings.
/Meta

--Paul

Meta
After a social evening of dancing, last night in the shower (where I get
many of my best ideas), I had a thought about the portion of this
message which I address below having snipped all the rest.
/Meta

On 04/17/2009 02:09 PM, Paul Wakfer wrote:
> On 04/05/2009 09:22 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
>>> whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
>>> not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
>>> and having her physically with me most of the time.
>>>
>> I had thought this to be the case: that the constant, physical
>> presence of a certain person could make a large difference in my
>> happiness. I'm glad to hear that you have experienced this, which
>> helps to support my hypothesis. Note, I understand it is not simply
>> the other person's physical presence that brings benefit, but also the
>> fact that hir physical presence enables easier communication and a
>> wider range of activities that can be done together, relative to the
>> lack of hir physical presence.
>
> Yes the immediate sharing of experiences and immediate ability to
> comment and respond is what is mainly necessary. The physical nearness
> is simply a necessary prerequisite for that immediacy, and when a
> romantic relationship is also enough physical presence is "icing on the cake".
>
>>> [I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.
**Kitty]
>>>
>> I have been trying to discover why I get a bit depressed and feel
>> relatively unmotivated for a period of a day or two about once per
>> month. After having considered vitamin deficiencies (i.e. vitamin D
>> supplementation), lack of exercise, and some other possible causes, I
>> think that my lack of close friendship may be a large part of the cause.
>
> Well you simply have to keep looking, never get "hard boiled"
> (unreceptive and unopen to others) and never give up.

Meta Snip of unneeded text /Meta

> In the meantime you must learn to do with many less complete
> relationships that are each of benefit in an important but different
> area of your life, and perhaps a few longer distance, less immediate
> relationships that are more complete. Of course, you can also consider
> relocating to where there exist one or more people with whom you do
> have a more complete relationship.


You could use the Internet to search your area for groups and activities
where people more compatible to your character and interests might be
more easily found than merely during your normal daily activities.
Here are some suggestions in that direction:
1) There are "meetup" groups of all interest types in all major cities.
Check out http://meetup.com
2) Categories of interest that you might look for would be: libertarian,
liberal, humanist, objectivist, philosophy, activism, life extension,
cryonics. atheist, free thinker, utilitarian, Bright

There is an interesting one that I found right off, at meetup.com,
with the title of Positive Thinkers & Doers.

Good luck!

--Paul

Kitty asked in a private email whether Wes's doctors knew he was taking generic
Alagebrium.  A comprehensive file is kept on each patient, accessible by the
dialysis nurses and by the renal doctors.  This includes a list of
non-prescribed medications, including in Wes's case Alagebrium.  Wes's renal
specialist has never commented on any of Wes's non-prescribed medications. so I
suspect he does not know Wes is taking Alagebrium.

He did apologize some months ago for having said Wes had a bad heart.  In August
2007, he admitted Wes to hospital for a suspected heart problem.  The problem
turned out to be indigestion.  When I walked into the ward to see Wes, the renal
specialist and a cardiologist were positioned by his bedside waiting for him to
have a heart attack, and asking him if he wanted to be saved.  It would have
been hilarious if I did not have some lingering doubt whether Alagebrium would
protect his arteries as well as the research studies indicated.

These doctors could be excused for suspecting Wes had a bad heart.  People with
kidney disease and people with diabetes have a high incidence of cardiac
problems.  However, an angiogram performed the following day showed no plaque
and no heart problems, apart from a sticky valve that Wes has had for years that
had not worsened.  Wes had an ultrasound of the heart about 12 months later. 
This also received a good report.  The cardiologist's comment:  'You are a very
lucky man.'

I don't know whether the renal specialist has ever asked himself why Wes does
not have heart problems in spite of his medical history.  He has never discussed
it with us.  We are certainly grateful to have access to generic Alagebrium -
Jessie Neagle

Meta
Since the policy of both I and Kitty waiting at least 7 days before
responding to any message has not had any positive effect towards
promoting more responses from other group members, I have decided to
rescind that self-imposed restriction and simply reply when and if I
decide to. The group policy will soon be changed accordingly and a
formal special notice of this change will be sent, but I needed to place
this here, to explain my response at this time.
/Meta

On 04/17/2009 08:35 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> Paul Antonik Wakfer wrote:
>
>> This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
>> OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
>> the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
>> RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
>> stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
>> Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
>> within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
>> special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
>> OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.
>>
>> This article has come about because Kitty has thoroughly understood
>> and integrated the ideas of the Self Sovereign Individual Project,
>> particularly from the essay introducing the concept of Social
>> Meta-Needs  with it twin implementations through Social Preferencing
>> and the Natural Social Contract. I was particularly pleased that the
>> piece also required very little editing from me. Of course it greatly
>> helps that she was a part of the discovery and development of those
>> ideas, but such deep understanding and full integration is certainly
>> not beyond the powers of many others.
>>
>> We both look forward to a time when many more people (first a few,
>> then dozens and finally hundreds! :-) have accomplished this deep
>> understanding and full integration and are presenting their own unique
>> and persuasive examples and interpretations of these novel and
>> profound social ideas in practical human social action.
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>> [The RRND commentary webpage currently has my article at the top of
>> its list - http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary :>)
>>
>> As I wrote Tom when I sent him notice of the article's publication, I
>> purposely submitted this article, Tax/Regulation Protests are Not
>> Enough at OpEdNews.com because it is a "progressive" news site and
>> while many there have some of the wrong ideas of how to get to and
>> even in some ways what constitutes a better society, it is clear that
>> all writers and commenters there really do want one. I think that
>> there can be inroads made by reaching out beyond the "choir" with this
>> view of those who do not currently hold some of the same views by
>> finding some foundational common points. I am pleased that the
>> managing editor, after rereading and reconsidering, moved my
>> submission from a diary entry to which she had downgraded it, to a
>> headlined article. **Kitty]
>
> Thank you for sending the notification about, and link to, Kitty's
> article on OpEdNews. I spent some time to create a profile on the site
> so I can comment on someone else's comment. I enjoyed the article. The
> following is an excerpt from Kitty's article that I will comment on:
>
> (begin-quote)"Today (2009), electronic access to countless sources of
> information (many not even available 40 years ago) and rapid lengthy
> communication with virtually anyone else can be had by the vast majority
> of those in the industrialized areas of the world and much of what is
> still on the road to "development". It is a rare person (adult and
> child) in the US who does not have access to, if not actually own, hir
> own computer; many have computer features in their cellular phones. For
> an individual in the US (and much of the world) these days to be
> informed on everything that happens currently or in the past and on
> ideas published by anyone currently or in the past is now mostly a
> matter of interest/desire/time rather than purely technical and/or cost
> availability.
>
> So the questions can and should be asked, "Why does the individual still
> need to be ruled by others? Is there not a better way now to achieve
> social order than by some centralized governing body to which an
> individual can, at best, only have an effect if part of a majority
> casting votes for a particular candidate/bond/referendum in a particular
> election?"" (end-quote)
>
> Meta
> A standard old method of quoting a long piece (as above) is to use
> "guillemets", which are either ">>" or "<<" marks at the beginning and
> end of the quote (see Kitty's example of this in her response to one
> of the commenters on OpEdNews). You could also use something equivalent
> to my Meta tags as: "Quote" and "/Quote" (which originate from the
> methods used in markup languages).

To continue here a bit more, your "(begin-quote)" and "(end-quote)"
are the right idea, but I contend that it is far better to use a set
standard for such indicators rather than for everyone to invent their
own method and thereby potentially confuse the reader with their
meaning and intention.

> /Meta
>
> I am commenting on this passage in particular because when I read it, I
> integrated several ideas which I hadn't previously considered (see my
> comment tonight to JonmarkP, where I discuss these ideas). More
> specifically, I hadn't considered the idea that the functions of
> government may be obsolete *because of* communication technologies
> such as the Internet.

This has been my thesis in all parts of the Self-Sovereign Individual
Project, stated implicitly or explicitly several places therein.
Specifically, when I critiqued the founding documents, particularly the
Declaration of Independence, I observed that it: "was written with the
best of intentions and with all the knowledge and wisdom which was
reasonably possible to be held by the best of men at that time in
history." The non-technological environment (particularly with respect
to speed of communication over any distance) of the time was the major
factor limiting even the most brilliant thinkers from discovering the
ideas that I have presented in my Social Meta-Needs treatise and most
certainly would make my implementations of them not even considered
because of the total impracticality in that era of those implementations
to any significant size and extent of a society. This is why I can
both revere the founding fathers and yet find great fault with what they
wrote and did - fault, that is, with respect to any thought of its being
able to work effectively in the modern world.

In the past, and still today to some extent, in small isolated
communities the effects of information from town gossips and the service
people, who interacted with lots of locals, enabled the people of the
community to maintain a reasonable knowledge about and evaluation of
each other and thereby to effect a strong level of social preferencing
to the benefit of all. Unfortunately there were still many irrational
biases and misunderstandings used as part of that evaluation and
preferencing. The movements to eliminate such biases has had the
negative effect of also eliminating the rational aspects and beneficial
effects of such social preferencing - like the old saying "throwing out
the baby with the bathwater". In addition, once communities grew larger,
the rational aspects of social preferencing became harder to practice
and use, and nothing was left but the simpler irrational aspects (such
as one's religion, skin color, dress or hair style).

> When information exchange is as fast and
> readily-accessible as it is now (and may continue to improve), it
> greatly facilitates cooperation between individuals for mutual benefit.

The Internet or successors of it will enable strong social preferencing
to once again be an effective source of social evaluation and ordering.
Just look at the current and growing enormous amount of information that
is available whenever you want to purchase a product. Eventually this
will become available for all paid services (if it is not outlawed by
governments) and then for all personal value for value services
including personal interactions of any kind. The Internet (the UCN of
my Natural Social Contract - which yes, will still expand enormously in
both speed and accessibility - it is only in its infancy as yet) will
enable all this to happen once people start to understand why and that
it is in their rational best interest to be fully open about themselves.

> However, such cooperation can't take place unless *both* (or all)
> parties pursue the same outcomes.

Yes, and this is the major stumbling point with most people. They say:
"if only *I* do these things that you ask then I will lose and others
will gain. So I am not even going to start unless and until sufficient
number of others (usually meaning at least a majority) also do so."  I
have little answer to such people other than to say:
1) If no one starts these actions, then they will never get accepted
and done by anyone.
2) You can gain personal psychological benefit from doing them by
knowing that you are acting rationally and optimally to the betterment
of society.
3) You can do them by stages starting with situations which will not
cause you that much hardship. For example do not quit your government
job today, but act to transition to honest work (where you are not
effectively the receiver of stolen funds and have no real way of
determining if you are actually worth the money you are getting) over
the next couple years.

In the end some of us are going to have to be like the early settlers
who opened up the west (and like those who began the revolutionary
war, for that matter, only we will not use violence), striking out
ahead of the others, and, yes, sometimes getting arrows in our backs.
Still I am convinced there is great happiness in the form of personal
satisfaction and self-esteem to be gained from being such a creator,
initial adopter and pioneer of a changing social paradigm, even though
I admit that the complacency and myopia of others can get very
discouraging at times.

> Pursuit of an outcome requires
> motivation, motivation requires interest, interest requires recognition
> of a need or desire, and such recognition requires *paying attention
> to reality* - i.e. *being responsible for one's life*.

But you cannot begin by exhorting someone to "be responsible for hir
own life". You must first lead hir to understand that the purpose of
hir life is optimally increasing hir lifetime happiness (many people
still think they are here to serve others and you need to convince
them that they their help for others will only be effective if they
first and foremost aim to help themselves to more happiness). Only then
can you begin to show hir why and that the only rational way to do
this based on the longest range and widest viewed thinking is to be
open, forthright and fully responsible for both the negative and
positive results of all hir choices/actions.

[I think that this point that Paul has emphasized is of extremely high
importance when interacting with others, and one I did not always
remember to use in earlier writings - that a person's purpose, even if
s/he does not recognize it) is to maximize her lifetime happiness. The
word as Paul and I use it means to seek to maintain or attain in life
all that is important, necessarily using long view, wide range thinking -
because that is the only means by which such maximization is possible!
Being self-responsible is a necessary method for this attaining and
maintaining, but recognizing and then beginning to proclaim the lifetime
happiness purpose to one's self and others is a prerequisite. **Kitty]

> I have read about the "democratization" of China, where such
> communication technologies are enabling individuals to discuss ideas
> that are "forbidden" by the government. However, I hadn't applied the
> same idea to the United States and other "Western, developed" countries.
> Kitty's article explores this idea by discussing government,
> inter-individual cooperation, and both of the previous, in the light
> of the historical lack of efficient communication technologies.
>
> I recommend the article.

Max, your comments on OpEdNews were well written and very helpful. I
am very pleased to see you stop holding back and spending unreasonable
amounts of time trying to decide what to do, but instead charging in
and ACTING! I would not say this for everyone, because many people
have fundamentally incorrect ideas, and action by them can be worse
than inaction. However, even without having fully read and digested
SMN and all related writings, you have shown that you have a very good
logical grasp of many of the right ideas. Therefore, it is time for
you to get involved and to learn as you go along. I look forward to
increasing amounts of such writings from you, so that you are included
among those "few" that I mentioned in my original message in this
thread (see above).

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
> OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
> the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
> RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
> stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
> Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
> within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
> special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
> OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.
>

Meta
Snip of Paul's & Kitty's explanations.
/Meta


Meta
The following is a response I made to a commenter to my article at
OpEdNews.com. It covered some important aspects of the article and
touched on the commenter's reading of the SMN theory essay.
/Meta

It's not necessary that everyone... [Title]
------------------------
"be as smart as [me]", as you put it.

First off, thank you, Roy, for a very substantive comment. There are
far too few of them at those few OpEdNews.com articles, that I
actually read. I think the practice of 1 to 3 sentence comments is
common partly because the enormous number of articles that are
submitted and published every day tends to encourage soundbite types
of retorts and/or praises. It is in fact difficult, I think, for the
newbie or only occasional reader at OEN to distinguish among writers
and make time worthy evaluations about what to read, skim or just
ignore. I understand why the editors themselves do not wish to make
such essentially censorship type evaluations and publication
decisions, but the vast numbers alone makes it very hard to find the
gems among the chaff. But then this current overload is a major
problem with information on the Internet in general, which will only
be resolved when each user begins to return and gain value for all
aspects of his/her (hir) usage.

<< Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
concepts, <<

While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are
ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
inadequate for guiding social interactions. My practical suggestions -
the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
at all. The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
directly opposed to any practical application of social preferencing.
Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
interacts).

<< but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
implementation. <<

Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.

<< However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
for you too. <<

I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
evolving self-ordered society.

<< Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
People Problem." <<

No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
"school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
"practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
to those same people.

<< I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
precise and scholary (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
and/or desire to understand. <<

It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
years in the late 70s and early 80s.

It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
:-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
social actions.

<< (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
beyond the scope of this article.) <<

Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.

We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/

<< I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
that there's more of them than there are of you. <<

The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
- granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
and voluntarily deal only with the latter.

Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
current government interference between parties - have a contractual
relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
(I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
"box".

Once again, thank you, Roy. The opportunity to elaborate on the
initial ideas in the article is greatly welcome. Hopefully some of
those who read the article *and* the comments will be motivated to
become more self-responsible and self-orderly, the earliest start
towards that far better and eventually optimal society that most
people seek.

BTW I noted your comment on 4/2 to another article, the last portion
of yours:
"There is no solution to the problem [of distortion of words by
politicians] as long as there are simple minded people and politicians
who want to exploit them. I don't see the balance of rational to
emotional thinkers changing anytime in the foreseeable future."
[addition mine]
Your entire reply was well worded, though cynical. Possibly now, after
reading my article and this exchange between us, you will rethink what
you wrote and see that there is a solution. Not one that will
immediately bring results, but is capable of bringing about meaningful
ones for the entire goal of the optimal society.

Lastly, I will be making this entire response of mine here at OEN into
a reply to the thread at MoreLife Yahoo that announced my article
publication. That is where continued dialog can take place on this
article and/or branch off onto the SMN theory and implications.

**Kitty

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

The upload to SelfSIP.org contains the new article that I wrote and was
published last Friday 4/17 at OpEdNews.com, "Tax/Regulation Protests are
Not Enough".

I made the time to finally wrap up another photo page from our
"adventures" in the north country - Harcourt Park Ontario :>) This one
is rather interesting with the details of dead tree felling on our
property by a professional team.

I had hoped to get all the photos from our 6 months in Ontario
transformed into pages during our time in Arizona.... but there just
never seems to be enough time. I still have a bunch showing our activity
in turning a fair amount of the 3 downed trees into 2 big stacks of fire
wood for out wood burning stove. Oh well, they are still on my list.

http://morelife.org
http://selfsip.org

As always, if anyone finds any errors of commission or omission, please
let me know.

**Kitty

PMID 16037305 (http://pubmed.gov/16037305) is titled "High-dose
thiamine therapy counters dyslipidemia and advanced glycation of
plasma protein in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats". It found that
thiamine had some benefits against AGEs that benfotiamine lacked (in a
rat model):

>We found hydroimidazolone AGE residues derived from glyoxal and
>methylglyoxal, G-H1 and MG-H1, were increased 115% and 68% in STZ
>diabetic rats, with respect to normal controls, and were normalized by
>both thiamine and benfotiamine; whereas N-carboxymethyl-lysine (CML)
>and N-carboxyethyl-lysine (CEL) residues were increased 74% and 118%
>in STZ diabetic rats and were normalized by thiamine only. The lack of
>effect of benfotiamine on plasma CML and CEL residue concentrations
>suggests there may be important precursors of plasma protein CML and
>CEL residues other than glyoxal and methylglyoxal. These are probably
>lipid-derived aldehydes.

I don't have access to the text but wonder how much thiamine was used.

StephenB

Kitty,
I wanted to respond more specifically to several points you made at OEN. I'll
focus primarily on one paragraph of yours first, where you talk about
libertarian concepts. I apologize in advance, if I'm not fully up to speed with
the "in-line" thing.

[You have done great. --Paul]


It may be helpful to tell you that I consider myself to be a libertarian, but I
am NOT a member of the Libertarian Party. I feel that, as a rule, party politics
creates compromises that dilute or contradict founding principles. The
Libertarian Party is no exception to this rule. I have a couple of serious
philosophical differences with their party platform.

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..."

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

Meta
Snip by moderator of previous introductory meta comments.
/Meta

> It's not necessary that everyone... [Title]
> ------------------------
> "be as smart as [me]", as you put it.
>
> First off, thank you, Roy, for a very substantive comment. There are
> far too few of them at those few OpEdNews.com articles, that I
> actually read. I think the practice of 1 to 3 sentence comments is
> common partly because the enormous number of articles that are
> submitted and published every day tends to encourage soundbite types
> of retorts and/or praises. It is in fact difficult, I think, for the
> newbie or only occasional reader at OEN to distinguish among writers
> and make time worthy evaluations about what to read, skim or just
> ignore. I understand why the editors themselves do not wish to make
> such essentially censorship type evaluations and publication
> decisions, but the vast numbers alone makes it very hard to find the
> gems among the chaff. But then this current overload is a major
> problem with information on the Internet in general, which will only
> be resolved when each user begins to return and gain value for all
> aspects of his/her (hir) usage.

Agreed.

> << Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
> concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
> society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
> concepts, <<
>
> While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are
> ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
> are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
> ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
> inadequate for guiding social interactions.

Ill-defined, ambiguous? Seems clear to me.?
Incomplete? Only in the details of its practical application.

The core libertarian principle (see above) establishes a basis in human nature
by recognizing the sovereign nature of human individuals, and guides social
interactions by defining "forcible interference" as the boundary between
acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.

>My practical suggestions -
> the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
> at all.

Your 6 items may not have come from libertarian concepts, but they sound very
libertarian to me. They are a solid set of guidelines on how a truly sovereign
(may I say libertarian) individual should avoid governmental interference and
reject governmental assistance.

>The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
> directly opposed to any practical application of social preferencing.

Social preferencing plays a very important role in libertarian thinking. It is
the essence of how individuals are able to exercise free choice without using
force against others.

> Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
> which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
> consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
> self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
> ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
> and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
> interacts).

As a libertarian, I defend anonymity as a choice. I believe information is owned
by the individual who created it. If personal information is an individual's
property, then unauthorized use of that information must, by definition, be
considered theft.

However, no rational libertarian will recommend a lifestyle of absolute
anonymity, precisely because it will likely carry with it the cost of negative
social preferencing. i.e. - not releasing credit history information will most
likely result in distrust by lenders. But, if you want to be a social outcast or
hermit, it's your choice.

Fraud is another matter. I consider fraud to be a use of force. Misrepresenting
or withholding relevant information, so as to influence another's choice must be
considered a restitutionable offense.

Please understand that I am not defending libertarian concepts or libertarians,
as such. I am simply using what is familiar to me as a basis for exploring your
ideas. I think our difference are probably more semantic than substantive.

> << but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
> implementation. <<
>
> Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
> simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
> any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
> must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
> epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.
>
Yes! It is extremely important to recognize the difference between what is
theoretically possible, and what is practically possible in the real world. I
believe the inability of many, if not most, to understand this difference, is
the primary source of both historical and current social tribulations. Any
social system that ignores, or seeks to somehow change, the reality of human
nature is doomed to failure.

> << However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
> envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
> many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
> government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
> for you too. <<
>
> I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
> of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
> to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
> begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
> lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
> apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
> works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
> continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
> oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
> up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
> greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
> evolving self-ordered society.
>
And here is where I see the practical getting in the way of the possible.

> << Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
> exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
> propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
> the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
> People Problem." <<
>
> No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
> society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
> but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
> you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
> eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
> and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
> either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
> "school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
> only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
> practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
> irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
> hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
> continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
> "practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
> result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
> supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
> everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
> Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
> governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
> self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
> vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
> to those same people.
>
I wish we lived in a world where we could simply ignore the "stupid." Maybe
someday there will be too few of them to exert control over our lives, through
their support of governments that are NOT inclined to let anyone just opt out of
their web of control without a fight.

> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
> precise and scholary (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
> I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
> intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
> of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
> few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
> and/or desire to understand. <<
>
> It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
> readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
> very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
> libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
> definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
> did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
> during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
> highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
> taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
> super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
> course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
> years in the late 70s and early 80s.
>
> It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
> individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
> ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
> of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
> question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
> implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
> have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
> :-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
> then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
> interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
> social actions.

I read some of your other foundational materials and reread the Meta-Needs
treatise again. I now have even more questions, concerns, and critiques than I
did before. But, I will save them for another thread.

> << (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
> with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
> beyond the scope of this article.) <<
>
> Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
> all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
> rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
> reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
> picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.
>
> We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
> too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
> theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
> fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
> between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
> Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
> changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
> although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
> conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
> understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
> idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
> only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
> methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
> will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
> exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
> discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
>
> << I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
> that there's more of them than there are of you. <<
>
> The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
> These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
> - granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
> negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
> ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
> individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
> novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
> mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
> and voluntarily deal only with the latter.
>
> Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
> all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
> system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
> self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
> doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
> consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
> current government interference between parties - have a contractual
> relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
> is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
> those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
> (I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
> other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
> when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
> "box".

All sounds good, but a whole lot easier said than done. Though, I'm not saying
that it isn't worth the effort.

> Once again, thank you, Roy. The opportunity to elaborate on the
> initial ideas in the article is greatly welcome. Hopefully some of
> those who read the article *and* the comments will be motivated to
> become more self-responsible and self-orderly, the earliest start
> towards that far better and eventually optimal society that most
> people seek.
>
> BTW I noted your comment on 4/2 to another article, the last portion
> of yours:
> "There is no solution to the problem [of distortion of words by
> politicians] as long as there are simple minded people and politicians
> who want to exploit them. I don't see the balance of rational to
> emotional thinkers changing anytime in the foreseeable future."
> [addition mine]
> Your entire reply was well worded, though cynical. Possibly now, after
> reading my article and this exchange between us, you will rethink what
> you wrote and see that there is a solution. Not one that will
> immediately bring results, but is capable of bringing about meaningful
> ones for the entire goal of the optimal society.
>
> Lastly, I will be making this entire response of mine here at OEN into
> a reply to the thread at MoreLife Yahoo that announced my article
> publication. That is where continued dialog can take place on this
> article and/or branch off onto the SMN theory and implications.
>
> **Kitty
>
> MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
> Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
> Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
> Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
> individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

-roy

In between various activities, Paul wrote a critique of the 4/24 Mises
Daily Article, "The Principle of Methodological Individualism" -
http://mises.org/story/3409 - an excerpt from Ch. 2 of Mises' own
_Human Action_. All daily articles are also put in a blog enabling
readers to comment on them - http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp,
to which Paul submitted his critique late on the evening of 4/24. The
submission returned a screen message that the comment was being "held
for the blog owner's review", but did not appear after 24 hours, and
neither did a second attempt done some ~15 hours later. After some
correspondence with the blog owner including a first "there isn't
anything wrong at our end and there is no sign of your comment, so
just try it", and after this third attempt gave the same non-result,
he finally again acknowledged problems with the Mises Blog system.
Paul's lengthy comment was finally published on Sunday evening 4/26,
48 hours late and by then lower down in the comment list than it
could have been.

Today 4/29, Rational Review News Digest (RRND) -
http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary - carried this following
quote from Paul's critique (entitled by the publisher Tom Knapp  with
what I have used as the Subject line of this message) in its
newsletter today:

"Collective wholes are not any necessary part of a complete and
consistent methodological individualism. Collective wholes do not
'become, disappear, change their structures and their operation.' Only
individual actions cause these changes and not to any real existent
but merely each to hir own mental constructs which s/he refers to as
such collective wholes with various names."
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp#comment-536657

Both I and Paul were very pleased that Tom selected this portion of
the critique to highlight to RRND's readers, and I wrote him to that
effect. His response to me:

"Yes, treatment of collectives as actual existents (and moreover,
_volitional_ existents) is a weakness in many analyses. It's also an
easy habit to fall into. I occasionally make the mistake myself.
That's one reason the particular quote stood out to me in my reading."

This in itself is a significant area for discussion.

**Kitty

On 04/27/2009 11:26 AM, spboulet wrote:
> PMID 16037305 (http://pubmed.gov/16037305) is titled "High-dose
> thiamine therapy counters dyslipidemia and advanced glycation of
> plasma protein in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats". It found that
> thiamine had some benefits against AGEs that benfotiamine lacked (in a
> rat model):
>
>
>> We found hydroimidazolone AGE residues derived from glyoxal and
>> methylglyoxal, G-H1 and MG-H1, were increased 115% and 68% in STZ
>> diabetic rats, with respect to normal controls, and were normalized by
>> both thiamine and benfotiamine; whereas N-carboxymethyl-lysine (CML)
>> and N-carboxyethyl-lysine (CEL) residues were increased 74% and 118%
>> in STZ diabetic rats and were normalized by thiamine only. The lack of
>> effect of benfotiamine on plasma CML and CEL residue concentrations
>> suggests there may be important precursors of plasma protein CML and
>> CEL residues other than glyoxal and methylglyoxal. These are probably
>> lipid-derived aldehydes.
>>
>
> I don't have access to the text but wonder how much thiamine was used.


The dosages of thiamine and benfotiamine used were 7 and 70 mg/kg
weight. Since the rats used were about 250 grams, with scaling factors
the higher dosage (which was the most effective) amounts to a little
over a gram per day for a 60 kg human, which is a high dosage for a
human, but not high enough to be toxic if taken chronically.

The results were not a surprise to me, since I would not expect
benfotiamine, which is soluble and active in lipid phases of tissues,
to be a replacement for thiamine, which is soluble and active in
aqueous phases.

One of the good things about this study (likely because Paul
Thornalley was the principal investigator for it) was that it split
the control non-diabetic rats into three groups: one with standard
chow, and the other two with each of the high dosages of thiamine and
benfotiamine. Both dosages had beneficial effects on the normal rats,
but on somewhat different parameters as with the diabetic rats. This
last effect shows that both high dose thiamine and high dose
benfotiamine are highly likely to benefit healthy humans, even
synergistically if they are both are taken. Of course, quite
naturally, diabetic human will likely be even more benefited.

I have uploaded a copy of the pdf of the full paper for your further
reading and sent you the link. I have no time at this point (return
drive to Ontario Canada begins tomorrow evening) to say more about the
paper, but if you wish to elaborate on its results with another
message in this thread then go right ahead.

--Paul

Meta
[Welcome to MoreLife Yahoo, Roy - we're a few days later than planned
since we our phone here in rural Ontario was not operating per
scheduled seasonal arrangements when we returned (in the wee hours of
Monday 5/4 after leaving AZ early Friday evening 5/2) and therefore we
were without Internet connection until this morning.

First off, I want to publicly thank and commend you for taking me up
on the invitation to continue our discussion at MoreLife Yahoo. While
I have offered this invitation on numerous occasions at OpEdNews.com
and other blogs and forums in the past, you are the first person to
directly come forward and do so.

Since much of a reply to your message is fundamental to the Social
Meta-Needs theory, of which Paul is the discoverer/formulator, he is
responding directly to much of it. As is our practice and we've
described in the past, although we always edit each other's writings,
each individually takes "authorship" for any writing that s/he
initiates and organizes, which is typically any that falls into a
specific area of interest/expertise for that person.

Recently and in response to this message we have decided that we will
more often construct separate responses before then blending them
since in that manner neither of us will have hir thinking/creativity
blunted by reading the other's response first. In this manner better
overall responses should be forthcoming from our collaborative
efforts. **Kitty]
/Meta

Meta
I am going to split this response into several parts because each one
needs a lengthy explanation to be anywhere near complete and persuasive.
/Meta

On 04/29/2009 01:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
> Kitty,
> I wanted to respond more specifically to several points you made at
> OEN. I'll focus primarily on one paragraph of yours first, where you
> talk about libertarian concepts. I apologize in advance, if I'm not
> fully up to speed with the "in-line" thing.
>
> [You have done great. --Paul]
>
>
> It may be helpful to tell you that I consider myself to be a
> libertarian, but I am NOT a member of the Libertarian Party.

Even though I always had some differences in thinking with other
libertarians (which differences were eventually crystallized in my
Social Meta-Needs theory), for want of a better description and
because my political/social philosophy was closer to that of
"libertarian" than any other currently used name, I also called myself
a libertarian from about 1975 until about 2000 when I met Kitty and
began to develop the foundation for social order that I now call
Social Meta-Needs theory. Although from about mid 80's I also used the
more explicit, but less known term, "Voluntaryist" (google it).

Before 1975, since 1962, I was an Objectivist (in philosophical
agreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy), but even then also in
disagreement with some notions (which again were related to what
eventually became Social Meta-Needs theory). And before 1962 I was
essentially a utilitarian humanist without using those words, but
again those unformed thoughts of best social actions were later a
major driver for the development of Social Meta-Needs theory.

During the late 70s (before I knew better :) I was very active in the
Libertarian Party in both the Province of Ontario and the Canadian
federal political area, into which I also put a great deal of money.
However, by about 1981 my continuing reading and thinking (spurred on
by my being expelled from the Libertarian Party of Canada - long story
not worth the time) had already transformed me away from any possible
connection with a political party into a market anarchist. 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.

> I feel that, as a rule, party politics creates compromises that
> dilute or contradict founding principles. The Libertarian Party is
> no exception to this rule. I have a couple of serious philosophical
> differences with their party platform.

It is quite true that the nature of adhering to the format and methods
of a political party creates conflicts among those working within that
format. The reason for this is because the goal of any political party
and the methods of reaching that goal are not consistent with reality,
since the voting democratic process of majority rule by force is not
consistent with the reality of human requirements for optimum life.
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. 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.

> 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. 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"?  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]


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. 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). 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

"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). 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.
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. 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".
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".

"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.

"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".

"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)?
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.
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. 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.
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.

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.

--Paul

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

Thanks for responding. Glad to hear that you're getting settled in without too
much headache.

> Meta
> [Welcome to MoreLife Yahoo, Roy - we're a few days later than planned
> since we our phone here in rural Ontario was not operating per
> scheduled seasonal arrangements when we returned (in the wee hours of
> Monday 5/4 after leaving AZ early Friday evening 5/2) and therefore we
> were without Internet connection until this morning.

Understood. Moving is always a pain.

> First off, I want to publicly thank and commend you for taking me up
> on the invitation to continue our discussion at MoreLife Yahoo. While
> I have offered this invitation on numerous occasions at OpEdNews.com
> and other blogs and forums in the past, you are the first person to
> directly come forward and do so.

No thanks needed. Value for value, remember. But, I wonder why others have not
accepted your invitation.

> Since much of a reply to your message is fundamental to the Social
> Meta-Needs theory, of which Paul is the discoverer/formulator, he is
> responding directly to much of it. As is our practice and we've
> described in the past, although we always edit each other's writings,
> each individually takes "authorship" for any writing that s/he
> initiates and organizes, which is typically any that falls into a
> specific area of interest/expertise for that person.
>
> Recently and in response to this message we have decided that we will
> more often construct separate responses before then blending them
> since in that manner neither of us will have hir thinking/creativity
> blunted by reading the other's response first. In this manner better
> overall responses should be forthcoming from our collaborative
> efforts. **Kitty]
> /Meta
>
> Meta
> I am going to split this response into several parts because each one
> needs a lengthy explanation to be anywhere near complete and persuasive.
> /Meta

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. 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.
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.

> On 04/29/2009 01:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
> > Kitty,
> > I wanted to respond more specifically to several points you made at
> > OEN. I'll focus primarily on one paragraph of yours first, where you
> > talk about libertarian concepts. I apologize in advance, if I'm not
> > fully up to speed with the "in-line" thing.
> >
> > [You have done great. --Paul]
> >
> >
> > It may be helpful to tell you that I consider myself to be a
> > libertarian, but I am NOT a member of the Libertarian Party.
>
> Even though I always had some differences in thinking with other
> libertarians (which differences were eventually crystallized in my
> Social Meta-Needs theory), for want of a better description and
> because my political/social philosophy was closer to that of
> "libertarian" than any other currently used name, I also called myself
> a libertarian from about 1975 until about 2000 when I met Kitty and
> began to develop the foundation for social order that I now call
> Social Meta-Needs theory. Although from about mid 80's I also used the
> more explicit, but less known term, "Voluntaryist" (google it).
>
> Before 1975, since 1962, I was an Objectivist (in philosophical
> agreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy), but even then also in
> disagreement with some notions (which again were related to what
> eventually became Social Meta-Needs theory). And before 1962 I was
> essentially a utilitarian humanist without using those words, but
> again those unformed thoughts of best social actions were later a
> major driver for the development of Social Meta-Needs theory.
>
> During the late 70s (before I knew better :) I was very active in the
> Libertarian Party in both the Province of Ontario and the Canadian
> federal political area, into which I also put a great deal of money.
> However, by about 1981 my continuing reading and thinking (spurred on
> by my being expelled from the Libertarian Party of Canada - long story
> not worth the time) had already transformed me away from any possible
> connection with a political party into a market anarchist.

Interesting. It gives me some perspective on your intellectual background.

> 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. 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.

> > I feel that, as a rule, party politics creates compromises that
> > dilute or contradict founding principles. The Libertarian Party is
> > no exception to this rule. I have a couple of serious philosophical
> > differences with their party platform.
>
> It is quite true that the nature of adhering to the format and methods
> of a political party creates conflicts among those working within that
> format. The reason for this is because the goal of any political party
> and the methods of reaching that goal are not consistent with reality,
> since the voting democratic process of majority rule by force is not
> consistent with the reality of human requirements for optimum life.

Agreed. Majority rule implies minority slavery.

> 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.

> 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.

> > 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. I think most would
define a "just right" as, that which one has come to possess because of morally,
ethically, or philosophically justifiable reasons. What justifiable reasons?
Philosophically, rights are an extension of the self. They stem from the concept
of rational egoism. The freedom to freely control all aspects of the self for
the benefit of the self. "...endowed by our creator..." is the unfortunate way
that Jefferson put it. It's obvious that what he meant was that we are born
owning ourself, and therefore we are born having dominion over ourself. Rand
would say that "man, by his nature, is an independent being."

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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. It none the less exists. It's
existence can be deduced based on rationality. My argument is this: A human is a
human. It is part of the nature of humans to be 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) A right then is
the expression of an individual human doing what is in the nature of humans to
do. And therefore, to deny this "right" is to deny the human-ness of an
individual.

> "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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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


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

> "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.

> "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. However, here is the second area were
libertarian see a legitimate role of government -- to peaceably resolve
disputes. Because, to envision a society without disputes between rational
individuals is a fantasy. (And by the way, it would NOT be a place I would want
to live.)

> 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.

> 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. The libertarian
perspective is this: Parents have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their
children, ie to protect children's potential life long happiness. To the extent
that parents' use force for this purpose, it is justified, in fact mandatory. 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.

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

> 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. 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.
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?

> 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.
>
> --Paul


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

Greetings:

I wanted to pass along this study as in the past Paul has stated that
more muscle seems to do nothing to extend life and might be even be
detrimental. This is the first study I have come across that seems to
suggest the opposite.

BTW, The BMJ is now available for free and the entire archives back to
the 1800s is now available for searching.

Erich Brueschke

Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective
cohorts
Conclusion: Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated
with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for
cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/jul01_2/a439

Meta
This is my response to the second portion of Roy's original message.
/Meta

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

Meta
snipped portions already responded to and all previous Meta text.
/Meta

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...> wrote:
>
Meta
snipped agreement portion.
/Meta

>> << Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
>> concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
>> society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
>> concepts, <<
>>
>> While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are

>> ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
>> are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
>> ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
>> inadequate for guiding social interactions.
>
> Ill-defined, ambiguous? Seems clear to me.?
> Incomplete? Only in the details of its practical application.

All libertarian text, that I know of, is ill-defined and ambiguous in
terms of the precise and clear meanings of the terms used (exactly to
what they apply and to what they do not apply).
No more examples, than those provided in Part 1 of this response, are
needed unless additional libertarian text is supplied.

> The core libertarian principle (see above) establishes a basis in
> human nature by recognizing the sovereign nature of human
> individuals,

What precisely does "sovereign" as a subcategory of "nature" mean?
Where do I find it and how do I detect it? How do I differentiate it
from other characteristics of human beings which one would call their
"nature"? Specifically given any other set of characteristics that are
of such nature, how do I determine whether "sovereign" is in that set or
not? For example, blond hair is not part of the nature of human beings,
but hair is. Smiling and crying seem to be part of the nature of human
beings, but after some recent analysis of a remote amazon tribe there is
some debate whether or not a sense of number is in the nature of all
humans.

> and guides social interactions by defining "forcible interference"
> as the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.

1) Precisely which actions are "forcible" and which are not? I don't
want a list (which would be endless). I want clearly defining
characteristics.
2) Same question for "interference"? Would not, even mutually voluntary
sexual relations be an example of "forcible interference"? Are
libertarians against sex? :-)
3) Acceptable or unacceptable by whom? And what is the action to be
taken by whom if some action (by someone else?) is found to be
acceptable or found to be unacceptable?

>> My practical suggestions -
>> the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
>> at all.
>
> Your 6 items may not have come from libertarian concepts, but they
> sound very libertarian to me. They are a solid set of guidelines on
> how a truly sovereign (may I say libertarian) individual should
> avoid governmental interference and reject governmental assistance.

[For reference I am restating the 6 items from the article:
1. Do not make use of "government services" that can be obtained
privately;
2. Initiate/support cooperative efforts that replace "government
services";
3. Do not work for or do business with governments of any form in any
capacity;
4. Preferentially associate with those who do *not* work for
governments - positive social preferencing;
5. Do *not* voluntarily associate with those who continue to work for
government despite being encouraged not to do so - negative social
preferencing;

Last but not least and actually primary to the preceding,
6. Practice self-responsibility and encourage the same by all others,
especially children and young people.

These 6 likely have a libertarian "ring" to them because, as Paul stated
previously, the theory of social meta-needs can be viewed as a synthesis
of which classical liberalism (the forerunner of libertarianism) is a
part. But the differences with libertarianism are significant as Paul
has and will continue to point out.

While a person who actually follows those 6 items will be rejecting
much of government - especially the enforcers by way of voluntary
disassociation - unless s/he understands and accepts the reasons
underlying them (for why government is not only undesirable but
actually unnecessary and why all forms of non-coercive rational social
preferencing are both valid and beneficial actions), s/he will likely
be hampered in attempts to persuade others, except merely by example
of actions and results. Only when such a person understands and
accepts the underlying principles - which may come about after simply
practicing those items for some time, as would a insightful novice at
any complex endeavor (an example of the inductive method by which most
knowledge is gained) - will sh/e really be self-sovereign in thought
even while government lingers on. **Kitty]

Paul again:
In my experience with libertarians (not much in recent years), I have
not seen any promote or practice either 3, 4 or 5 above and 6 is not
particularly libertarian being also promoted by some other social
groups that are far from libertarian - eg humanists.

>> The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
>> directly opposed to any practical application of social
>> preferencing.
>>
> Social preferencing plays a very important role in libertarian
> thinking.

Kitty did not imply that social preferencing (not by that term, but
rather called "the right of association") is not a major part of
libertarian principle and action. What she stated, and you have not
addressed, is that "the idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians",
which includes anonymity, multiple unlinked pseudonyms and even, for
many, a positive right to personal privacy, is inconsistent with any
effective social preferencing between individuals in society. This is
because, to be effective, social preferencing requires the ability to
find out and monitor all possible information about the person who you
are evaluating for the purpose of association (friendship or value
exchange of some kind) and more generally, whose actions you are
evaluating with respect to whether or not they operate towards an
optimal increase in your lifetime happiness or not. Such effective
monitoring/evaluation of another individual cannot take place if s/he
is a "ghost" about whom only a little information is available or has
the information by which s/he could be reasonably evaluated
distributed between several unlinked pseudonyms.

> It is the essence of how individuals are able to exercise free
> choice without using force against others.

At this point, because all these libertarian terms are ill-defined and
ambiguous, I have no choice but to resort to the use of the clearly
defined fundamental terms of the SMN theory (capitalized words below),
which are defined within the  formal part of its implementation by the
Natural Social Contract (NSC) - which is the effective replacement,
within the future possible self-ordered society of full liberty that I
am founding and describing, for the entire legal system within any
current society (which is why the NSC is *not* a simple read). Please
consult http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html for all definitions
(BTW, you will not find a definition of "force" in that document,
because in social terms it is a derivative word, fraught with
problems).

1) Social Preferencing is not the "essence" of anything. It is a
practical method by which one individual communicates hir Evaluation
of another individual to that other individual and, ideally, to all
other individuals with whom that other one is Connected.

2) Choice and force are totally unrelated things. Choice is something
that takes place in the brain/mind. It is the Action taken as a result
of the Choice which may or may not use force in some manner. But
again, it is first necessary to make a clear definition of just what
constitutes "force". ("Action" and "Choice" are pretty clear.)
Furthermore as I showed in the first part, not all initiation of
force, even pure physical force, by one human being on another is bad
and should be forbidden as it is by the most fundamental principle
that libertarians hold (which most maintain is the essential defining
principle of being a libertarian) - The Non-Aggression Principle
(NAP), which states: "a human individual may do anything that s/he
wants provided only that s/he does not initiate or threaten violence
against the person or properly owned property of another". Once again
the problems here arise from the fact that the meanings of 'Initiate",
"threaten", "violence" and "properly owned property" are all highly
ambiguous in the English language and which exact meaning is to be
used here is not specified. In addition, as my previous examples
showed (and uncountably many other examples are possible) even with
totally reasonable meanings for those terms, there are many Actions
contrary to the NAP that any libertarian would agree are correct ones.
Therefore, the "principle" is not a complete and sufficient basis to
decided whether any human Action will or will not optimally increase
the Lifetime Happiness of the Actor, and because of that, the NAP is
not correctly described as a principle at all.

[The NAP formulation that Paul used above is a slightly modified one
of Walter Block's in his article, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of
Libertarianism" - http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
An even worse version is that of L. Neil Smith: "No one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, nor to delegate its initiation." The article at Wikipedia
includes both these versions and includes the following sentence
following Smith's: "This is considered an imprecise formulation, since
it explicitly ignores context." In actuality all of the versions,
including Ayn Rand's that is mentioned first are "imprecise" and
"ignore context".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Formulations **Kitty]

>> Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
>> which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
>> consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
>> self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
>> ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
>> and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
>> interacts).
>
> As a libertarian, I defend anonymity as a choice.

Roy, you (and many others) are confusing the two completely different
aspects of a human Action:
1) whether or not a given human Action should be *Permitted* by all
other humans, with "Permitted" meaning that the Action is neither
prevented, circumvented, punished, has required Restitution or in any
manner is opposed by an Action of Responsible Harm to the Actor, and
2) whether or not a human Action should be evaluated by each human
with respect to its effects on hir ability to optimally increase hir
Lifetime Happiness (for all humans at the same time), and to act in
ways that do *not* involve any Action of Responsible Harm to the
Actor, but are intended to effect a change in the Actor such that in
future hir related Actions *do* promote the ability of each human to
optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same time.

Note the essential difference between those two human reactions to
another human action described immediately above. The first involves
an Act of Responsible Harm (initiation of physical force is one simple
example of an Action that generally causes Responsible Harm), but the
second does not.

Attempting to Act in an anonymous manner is clearly an Action of the
second kind, and any Action that does not involve Responsible Harm
must be an allowable Action in response, or else one does not have
full Liberty. So under the NSC any human may attempt to be anonymous,
if s/he wishes, without Breaching the NSC, but any other human may
also decide to not associate or in any manner interact with anyone
attempting to be anonymous and to persuade others to do likewise (all
of which are forms of Social Preferencing), also without Breaching the
NSC. Since SMN theory implies that attempting to be anonymous has
negative effects on the ability of all humans (including the Actor) to
optimally increase their Lifetime Happinesses, I choose to Social
Preference against anyone who acts in that manner. Note carefully that
Social Preferencing includes any Action that does not Effect
Responsible Harm to another human.

> I believe information is owned by the individual who created it. If
> personal information is an individual's property, then unauthorized
> use of that information must, by definition, be considered theft.

No. Information has fundamentally different Attributes (for one, the
ability to make exact copies) than either Material Existents or Real
Estate. In terms of the NSC metaphysics, Information is a Level-1 or
greater Existent, or in vernacular terms one may describe Information
as pure "structure". For that reason, the way humans should best
interact relative to Information will not be and cannot be the same as
the best ways to interact with respect to Material Existents and Real
Estate (which are each also different from the other). Note that
"should best interact" is defined as all Actions that will enable each
person to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same
time.

> However, no rational libertarian will recommend a lifestyle of
> absolute anonymity, precisely because it will likely carry with it
> the cost of negative social preferencing. i.e. - not releasing
> credit history information will most likely result in distrust by
> lenders.

Yes, anyone with *incorrect* notions will always find that the
exigencies of practical reality will cause them to make exceptions to
such notions. In fact, as a general rule of logic, if exceptions to a
principle or axiom need to be made that is an indication that the
principle or axiom is fundamentally invalid, usually because it is not
dealing with the root and basis in reality of what is really needed to
make such decisions. Such a complete and consistent root and basis for
making all ethical decisions is precisely what SMN theory supplies
(which is why I think of it as an extension and correction of
Objectivism making it consistent and complete), and which no
libertarian principles do.

However, there is another problem with your statement above of which
you are likely not aware. The word "rational" applied to Choices and
Actions is a very slippery and tricky word to nail down. I had great
difficultly myself arriving at any consistent definition for Rational,
which I found that I could not do without (even though Mises in his
seminal work "Human Action" totally eschews the "rational" notion). I
have never seen any adequate definition of "rational" from either a
libertarian or even an Objectivist (for the latter of whom it is very
fundamental - being called "irrational" is the worst possible insult
that an Objectivist can make).

> But, if you want to be a social outcast or hermit, it's your choice.

Yes, but no one can both take an Action and also not get the
consequences. That is contrary to reality. The consequences of one's
Actions bear the same relationship to the Actions as does a physical
reaction to an action - recall Newton's third law of motion law: "To
each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In the
case of anonymity the consequences are both strong Social Preferencing
against the person who attempts to be anonymous, and the loss of many
contact and connection opportunities from which s/he might otherwise
benefit.

> Fraud is another matter. I consider fraud to be a use of force.

Roy, excuse me for having to say this and not meaning to insult you,
but you are merely spouting the standard libertarian mantra. Please
tell me precisely **where** during a fraudulent exchange is any
physical force initiated?

The standard libertarian (and Objectivist) answer (which I used to
swallow too, because I had no better answer) is that fraud is force
because if the defrauded person had known the truth, then s/he would
have needed to be forced to make the exchanged on the same terms. But
that answer is logically a false description of what actually occurs,
and thus skirts and prevents the discovery of a more fundamental
reason for why fraud must generally be held to be a Violation in order
for there to be optimal social order.

I have not capitalized the word "fraud" because it is not even defined
in the NSC. The reason for this is because fraud is but one important
example covered by the more general concept of Responsibility under a
Valid Contract, which, in order to be valid, must have both
Termination Clauses and Breach Penalty Clauses. Under the NSC, a
Breach of a Valid Contract is grounds for a Charge of Breach of the
NSC itself and consequent Revocation of all NSC Privileges if found
Guilty.

> Misrepresenting or withholding relevant information, so as to
> influence another's choice must be considered a restitutionable
> offense.

Even if that were true, it does not equate such action to the
initiation of physical force. But once again it is not always true
that such a fraud is either a Violation (the NSC more general term
replacing "offense") or requires restitution. In fact, Responsible
Harm to a person is the more fundamental determiner of whether or not
s/he should be Restituted.

Here is an example:
I will use the example where I roll back the odometer of my car,
before selling it to you, because I want to get you to pay me more
money than any reasonable person would consider the car to be worth
based on the actual number of miles it has been driven.
But I will not exhaustively consider all the different situations
related to the NSC that might relate to this (whether under a Valid
Contract or not, whether the Contract contains the odometer reading or
not, all the harms that could result, the possible Breach of the NSC
involved, etc). Rather I want to simply address one completely possible
situation:

I am as certain as I can be that the car is in such excellent shape
that it will run and last as if the odometer reading to which I set it
were true, and furthermore the car actually lasts even longer and with
less cost than most cars that have the odometer readings at which it
was sold.

My question in this case is then why should such an action even if
found out years later be deemed to be an offense? And what could
possibly be the Restitution for such offense since the Lifetime
Happiness of the purchaser is at least as high as it would have been
if I had not taken that action.

Now you may say: but the purchaser *has* had hir Lifetime Happiness
reduced because s/he paid more money for the car than s/he would have
if s/he had known the true odometer reading. However, this assumes
that I would have been willing to sell the car at that lower price
knowing full well that it was worth more, so the logic is invalid.

In fact, this is one of those situations that can only reasonably be
solved by assuming the full principle of value for value is understood
and used by both parties. In that case, I would have not turned the
odometer back. Rather I would have left it as is and done my utmost
to persuade the buyer of its stellar condition even at that advanced
mileage. Then the buyer could decide for hirself whether s/he wanted
to pay me for the worth of the car now or later once s/he had fully
determined it (plus interest, of course).

It is also interesting that you said "withholding relevant
information" because in my experience most libertarians do not agree
with you here. Most of them invoke the "buyer beware principle" (the
onus to find out information is on the buyer not the seller) to
maintain that so long as you do not say or clearly imply anything
false during a transaction you are within your "rights". I, of course,
strongly disagree with that as I have done for over 30 years.

Nevertheless your statement is fraught with problems unless you can
come up with a clear definition of "relevant information" - relevant
to whom, when and in what way? In fact, I defy you to give any general
and complete definition. I certainly can't (but don't need to,
because the SMN and NSC handle this sort of potential harm entirely
differently).

> Please understand that I am not defending libertarian concepts or
> libertarians, as such. I am simply using what is familiar to me as a
> basis for exploring your ideas. I think our difference are probably
> more semantic than substantive.

Our differences are most certainly semantic, but only because of the
multiple meanings that the words you use have in the vernacular
language (my uneducated guess is that English is probably the worst in
this respect).

But more importantly than that, we have major differences because you
are not basing your ethical statements on fundamental enough concepts
to enable them to be consistent and complete (to not allow contrary
actions that both fit your statement, and for any action, to enable a
decision of whether it is right or wrong).

>> << but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
>> implementation. <<
>>
>> Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
>> simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
>> any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
>> must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
>> epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.
>>
> Yes! It is extremely important to recognize the difference between
> what is theoretically possible, and what is practically possible in
> the real world. I believe the inability of many, if not most, to
> understand this difference, is the primary source of both historical
> and current social tribulations. Any social system that ignores, or
> seeks to somehow change, the reality of human nature is doomed to
> failure.

You have said it very well. My only criticism is with your phrase
"theoretically possible". I maintain that if some principle or theory
cannot be brought to practical operation, then it is not actually even
*theoretically* possible. It is simply invalid and meaningless.

Philosophy instructors delight in raising all sorts of theoretical
examples such as unicorns, truth machines, people who cannot lie,
people who always lie, etc. I reject all of these as useful for any
purpose whatsoever. In addition, while I again totally agree with you
about the futility of trying to change the reality of human nature,
one has to very carefully examine human nature to ascertain just what
is its *true* reality, before one decides whether or not something is
contrary to that nature. I would maintain that the major problem with
the world today is that the vast majority of people are acting
contrary to their true nature, mainly because they have not yet
discovered the fundamental aspects of that nature.

Kitty thought that the following quote from a story on MSNBC that she
just saw today fitted right in here (and I agree):

"Can Star Trek's non-violent utopia happen?" -
Tricorders and transporters are cool, but the most radical invention
on "Star Trek" may have been its vision of a peaceful humanity.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30626488/from/ET/

"I do think humans might someday reach more peaceful coexistence if we
don't destroy the planet first, though I doubt it will be utopia,"
said Dennis Fox, emeritus professor of legal studies and psychology at
the University of Illinois at Springfield. "If utopia does come, it
won't be because human nature changes
<http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080502-strange-humans.html>,
or because some governmental authority or alien race forces it upon
us, but because we manage to create new social structures more
conducive to satisfying human needs and values."

Naturally both I and Kitty strongly think that SMN theory and its
twin implementations via the NSC and Social Preferencing *are* that
"new social structure[] more conducive to satisfying human needs and
values". Unfortunately neither Fox nor anyone else of academic, or
media stature, yet knows that it exists.

>> << However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
>> envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
>> many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
>> government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
>> for you too. <<
>>
>> I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
>> of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
>> to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
>> begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
>> lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
>> apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
>> works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
>> continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
>> oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
>> up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
>> greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
>> evolving self-ordered society.
> And here is where I see the practical getting in the way of the
> possible.

We are not saying that it will be easy. If it were that easy it would
have occurred already. All we are saying is that it is possible and
that it must be tried (all other ways have failed).

>> << Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
>> exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
>> propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
>> the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
>> People Problem." <<
>>
>> No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
>> society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
>> but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
>> you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
>> eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
>> and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
>> either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
>> "school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
>> only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
>> practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
>> irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
>> hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
>> continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
>> "practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
>> result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
>> supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
>> everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
>> Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
>> governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
>> self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
>> vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
>> to those same people.
> I wish we lived in a world where we could simply ignore the
> "stupid."

Then first, start looking after your health by all possible methods so
that you can have a very long life, and second, get involved with the
SelfSIP project.

> Maybe someday there will be too few of them to exert control over
> our lives, through their support of governments that are NOT
> inclined to let anyone just opt out of their web of control without
> a fight.

The key is to be subtle, slow, non-violent, mostly unseen, highly
dispersed and to keep totally clear of hot issues (such as weapons,
drugs, money laundering, overt tax evasion methods, replacement
currencies, etc).

>> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
>> precise and scholary (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
>> I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
>> intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
>> of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
>> few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
>> and/or desire to understand. <<
>>
>> It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
>> readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
>> very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
>> libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
>> definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
>> did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
>> during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
>> highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
>> taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
>> super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
>> course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
>> years in the late 70s and early 80s.
>>
>> It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
>> individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
>> ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
>> of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
>> question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
>> implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
>> have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
>> :-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
>> then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
>> interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
>> social actions.
>>
>
> I read some of your other foundational materials and reread the
> Meta-Needs treatise again. I now have even more questions, concerns,
> and critiques than I did before. But, I will save them for another
> thread.

Good, but I have already noted that your next message (in response to
the first part of my reply to this message - which I realize now it
was a mistake to post before this was ready), did not address any
direct text or ideas within SMN, NSC or anything else on SelfSIP.org

>> << (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
>> with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
>> beyond the scope of this article.) <<
>>
>> Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
>> all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
>> rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
>> reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
>> picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.
>>
>> We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
>> too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
>> theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
>> fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
>> between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
>> Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
>> changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
>> although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
>> conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
>> understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
>> idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
>> only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
>> methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
>> will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
>> exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
>> discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
>>
>> << I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
>> that there's more of them than there are of you. <<
>>
>> The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
>> These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
>> - granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
>> negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
>> ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
>> individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
>> novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
>> mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
>> and voluntarily deal only with the latter.
>>
>> Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
>> all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
>> system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
>> self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
>> doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
>> consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
>> current government interference between parties - have a contractual
>> relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
>> is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
>> those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
>> (I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
>> other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
>> when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
>> "box".
>
> All sounds good, but a whole lot easier said than done. Though, I'm
> not saying that it isn't worth the effort.

But you need to thoroughly understand the SMN and the NSC to fully
understand that it can be done and how it actually is all done, there
and with the addition of strong Social Preferencing.

Meta
snipped the rest which was uncommented.
/Meta

--Paul

I think that the following summary, which I recently received, and
perhaps most of the linked full report will be useful reading to most
readers of this group.

--Paul

KLRI RELEASES 3rd ANNUAL REPORT ON YEAR'S TOP LONGEVITY RESEARCH FINDINGS

Vitamin D Deficiency Particularly Concerning in Older Americans


Washington, D.C., Tuesday, May 12, 2009 --- Today the Kronos Longevity Research
Institute (KLRI) released its third annual report on top longevity research
findings over the last year.  Link to the report here:
http://www.kronosinstitute.org/publications/reports/sos_2009.cfm

Director S. Mitchell Harman, Ph.D. was joined by Carey Gleason, Ph.D., Associate
Scientist/Geriatric Neuropsychologist from the University of Wisconsin and
Arthur Weltman, Ph.D., Professor for the Department of Human Services and
Department of Medicine, University of Virginia to discuss the findings.  Leading
aging research institutes and advocacy groups attended the event.

"KLRI continues its mission to bring top longevity research from the laboratory
to patient care with the release of our annual report," said Harman.  "We have
seen many advances in our understanding of the aging process this year.  This
research is the cornerstone of our ability as scientists and doctors to help
people live longer, healthier lives."

The state of the science report "Grey is the New Gold 2009: Optimism in
Longevity Science" explored the following issues.

Vitamin D.  Vitamin D is turning out to be a critically important vitamin for
all aspects of health, particularly those related to aging.  Low levels have
been linked to urinary incontinence, problems swallowing (dysphagia), breathing
ability (increasing the risk of pneumonia), age-related macular degeneration,
dementia, influenza and several cancers, including colon, breast and prostate. 
Yet 40 to 100 percent of elderly men and women living in the community, and more
than half of postmenopausal women taking osteoporosis medication, have
clinically low levels of vitamin D.

Oxidation, inflammation and insulin resistance.  These are the "three horsemen
of aging," believed to underlie nearly all age-related diseases and processes. 
Current work at KLRI includes a study to see if insulin sensitizers can reduce
inflammation and oxidative stress.  Elsewhere in the country, researchers are
investigating the role of nutrition in stemming oxidation, inflammation and
insulin resistance, finding that powerful plant-based antioxidants called
polyphenols can prevent and reverse the effects of aging on memory brain cells
and function.

Telomeres and insulin resistance.  Telomeres are caps on the end of a cell's
chromosomes that help keep chromosomes stable, just as the cap on a pen prevents
ink from leaking.  With time, however, the telomere shrinks.  The shorter the
telomere, the worse the cell functions and the closer it is to death.  New
research suggests that, in addition to age, being overweight or obese can wreak
havoc on telomere length even in your twenties, thanks to insulin resistance.

Physical fitness and exercise training.  To learn more about the benefits of
exercise in preventing age-related declines, KLRI researchers have begun a study
to measure the response of fit and unfit older men and women to two acute
stressors: a blood pressure test, which increases oxidative stress, and a
psychological test, which increases neuroendocrine stress, releasing
inflammatory chemicals.  Researchers will also look for any link between
oxidative stress and neuroendocrine responses.

Calorie restriction.  Numerous studies have found that restricting an animal's
calories by 25 to 30 percent can extend their lifespan.  A five-year trial
called CALERIE (Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Restricted
Intake of Energy), which involves 250 healthy volunteers, ages 25 to 45,
assigned to either restrict their calories by 25 percent or be part of a control
group, has already produced some interesting data.  For instance, calorie
restriction reduces insulin levels, core body temperature, energy expenditure
and DNA damage.  It can also increase cellular resistance to stress proteins.

Hormones and aging.  While the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study (KEEPS),
designed to evaluate the effect of estrogen on heart disease in younger,
postmenopausal women, continues, ancillary studies underway could provide
interesting data on other topics.  These include menopause and age-related skin
changes and the effects of estrogen on blood cell function and the formation of
blood clots.  Meanwhile, KLRI's TEAAM (Testosterone Effects on Atherosclerosis
in Aging Men) completed recruitment and is engaged in the research necessary to
track the effect of supplemental testosterone on a variety of age-related
markers.  While both trials will examine the role of hormones in cognitive
function, research published this year from other studies found no effects from
either a low dose of estrogen or supplemental testosterone on cognition.

The Longevity Dividend.  The Longevity Dividend is based on the theory that, if
we can intervene scientifically to slow the aging process and delay the onset of
age-related diseases, trillions of dollars now spent on health care could be
redirected to schools, energy, jobs, infrastructure-the "dividend."  A group of
leading scientists hopes to convince the federal government to change medical
research funding from its focus on individual diseases to a focus that
recognizes the importance of research into the underlying biology of aging. 
Only then, they contend, can the Longevity Dividend become a reality.

KLRI Research in 2008/2009.  In addition to KLRI's longer-range studies on the
possible cardio-protective effects hormone replacement therapy in women close to
the menopausal transition (KEEPS) and the impact of testosterone on aging men
(TEAMM), KLRI conducted a number of other studies, including research published
in the Journal of the American Aging Association showing that statin use in
older adults does not negatively affect aerobic exercise or high-intensity
weight training; a March 2008 report published in the Hormonal and Metabolic
Research, which demonstrated that after 10 weeks on a high omega-3 fatty acid
diet participants demonstrated significantly greater insulin sensitivity and
lower levels of some circulating inflammatory markers, as well as releasing
fewer fat molecules; and a small pilot study that investigated the effects of
vinegar on hunger, fullness and glucose absorption over a three-hour period.


About the Kronos Longevity Research Institute (KLRI)

KLRI, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, is a leader in developing new
modes of prevention and treatment to enhance human longevity.  KLRI is the only
independent research institute devoted exclusively to translating basic
discoveries in the process of aging into useful tools, improved medical care and
healthier lives.  KLRI's research is conducted by its own highly regarded
scientists and through collaborations with some of the nation's leading medical
research centers.  Because KLRI conducts pioneering research in an area of
science that is poorly understood, KLRI offers the potential to make seminal
contributions that benefit not only the growing population of older Americans,
but people everywhere and generations to follow.

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

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

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

> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@> wrote:
> >
> >> << Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
> >> concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
> >> society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
> >> concepts, <<
> >>
> >> While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are
>
> >> ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
> >> are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
> >> ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
> >> inadequate for guiding social interactions.
> >
> > Ill-defined, ambiguous? Seems clear to me.?
> > Incomplete? Only in the details of its practical application.
>
> All libertarian text, that I know of, is ill-defined and ambiguous in
> terms of the precise and clear meanings of the terms used (exactly to
> what they apply and to what they do not apply).
> No more examples, than those provided in Part 1 of this response, are
> needed unless additional libertarian text is supplied.

Previously addressed.

> > The core libertarian principle (see above) establishes a basis in
> > human nature by recognizing the sovereign nature of human
> > individuals,
>
> What precisely does "sovereign" as a subcategory of "nature" mean?
> Where do I find it and how do I detect it? How do I differentiate it
> from other characteristics of human beings which one would call their
> "nature"? Specifically given any other set of characteristics that are
> of such nature, how do I determine whether "sovereign" is in that set or
> not? For example, blond hair is not part of the nature of human beings,
> but hair is. Smiling and crying seem to be part of the nature of human
> beings, but after some recent analysis of a remote amazon tribe there is
> some debate whether or not a sense of number is in the nature of all
> humans.

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

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

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

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

> > and guides social interactions by defining "forcible interference"
> > as the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.
>
> 1) Precisely which actions are "forcible" and which are not? I don't
> want a list (which would be endless). I want clearly defining
> characteristics.
> 2) Same question for "interference"? Would not, even mutually voluntary
> sexual relations be an example of "forcible interference"? Are
> libertarians against sex? :-)
> 3) Acceptable or unacceptable by whom? And what is the action to be
> taken by whom if some action (by someone else?) is found to be
> acceptable or found to be unacceptable?

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

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

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

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

> >> My practical suggestions -
> >> the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
> >> at all.
> >
> > Your 6 items may not have come from libertarian concepts, but they
> > sound very libertarian to me. They are a solid set of guidelines on
> > how a truly sovereign (may I say libertarian) individual should
> > avoid governmental interference and reject governmental assistance.
>
> [For reference I am restating the 6 items from the article:
> 1. Do not make use of "government services" that can be obtained
> privately;
> 2. Initiate/support cooperative efforts that replace "government
> services";
> 3. Do not work for or do business with governments of any form in any
> capacity;
> 4. Preferentially associate with those who do *not* work for
> governments - positive social preferencing;
> 5. Do *not* voluntarily associate with those who continue to work for
> government despite being encouraged not to do so - negative social
> preferencing;
>
> Last but not least and actually primary to the preceding,
> 6. Practice self-responsibility and encourage the same by all others,
> especially children and young people.

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

> These 6 likely have a libertarian "ring" to them because, as Paul stated
> previously, the theory of social meta-needs can be viewed as a synthesis
> of which classical liberalism (the forerunner of libertarianism) is a
> part. But the differences with libertarianism are significant as Paul
> has and will continue to point out.
>
> While a person who actually follows those 6 items will be rejecting
> much of government - especially the enforcers by way of voluntary
> disassociation - unless s/he understands and accepts the reasons
> underlying them (for why government is not only undesirable but
> actually unnecessary and why all forms of non-coercive rational social
> preferencing are both valid and beneficial actions), s/he will likely
> be hampered in attempts to persuade others, except merely by example
> of actions and results. Only when such a person understands and
> accepts the underlying principles - which may come about after simply
> practicing those items for some time, as would a insightful novice at
> any complex endeavor (an example of the inductive method by which most
> knowledge is gained) - will sh/e really be self-sovereign in thought
> even while government lingers on. **Kitty]

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

> Paul again:
> In my experience with libertarians (not much in recent years), I have
> not seen any promote or practice either 3, 4 or 5 above and 6 is not
> particularly libertarian being also promoted by some other social
> groups that are far from libertarian - eg humanists.

Truth is truth.

> >> The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
> >> directly opposed to any practical application of social
> >> preferencing.
> >>
> > Social preferencing plays a very important role in libertarian
> > thinking.
>
> Kitty did not imply that social preferencing (not by that term, but
> rather called "the right of association") is not a major part of
> libertarian principle and action. What she stated, and you have not
> addressed, is that "the idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians",
> which includes anonymity, multiple unlinked pseudonyms and even, for
> many, a positive right to personal privacy, is inconsistent with any
> effective social preferencing between individuals in society. This is
> because, to be effective, social preferencing requires the ability to
> find out and monitor all possible information about the person who you
> are evaluating for the purpose of association (friendship or value
> exchange of some kind) and more generally, whose actions you are
> evaluating with respect to whether or not they operate towards an
> optimal increase in your lifetime happiness or not. Such effective
> monitoring/evaluation of another individual cannot take place if s/he
> is a "ghost" about whom only a little information is available or has
> the information by which s/he could be reasonably evaluated
> distributed between several unlinked pseudonyms.

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

> > It is the essence of how individuals are able to exercise free
> > choice without using force against others.
>
> At this point, because all these libertarian terms are ill-defined and
> ambiguous, I have no choice but to resort to the use of the clearly
> defined fundamental terms of the SMN theory (capitalized words below),
> which are defined within the  formal part of its implementation by the
> Natural Social Contract (NSC) - which is the effective replacement,
> within the future possible self-ordered society of full liberty that I
> am founding and describing, for the entire legal system within any
> current society (which is why the NSC is *not* a simple read). Please
> consult http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html for all definitions
> (BTW, you will not find a definition of "force" in that document,
> because in social terms it is a derivative word, fraught with
> problems).

See above response.

> 1) Social Preferencing is not the "essence" of anything. It is a
> practical method by which one individual communicates hir Evaluation
> of another individual to that other individual and, ideally, to all
> other individuals with whom that other one is Connected.

Sounds pretty "essential" to me.

> 2) Choice and force are totally unrelated things. Choice is something
> that takes place in the brain/mind. It is the Action taken as a result
> of the Choice which may or may not use force in some manner.

Okay...

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

See above.

("Action" and "Choice" are pretty clear.)

> Furthermore as I showed in the first part, not all initiation of
> force, even pure physical force, by one human being on another is bad
> and should be forbidden as it is by the most fundamental principle
> that libertarians hold (which most maintain is the essential defining
> principle of being a libertarian) - The Non-Aggression Principle
> (NAP), which states: "a human individual may do anything that s/he
> wants provided only that s/he does not initiate or threaten violence
> against the person or properly owned property of another". Once again
> the problems here arise from the fact that the meanings of 'Initiate",
> "threaten", "violence" and "properly owned property" are all highly
> ambiguous in the English language and which exact meaning is to be
> used here is not specified.

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

> In addition, as my previous examples
> showed (and uncountably many other examples are possible) even with
> totally reasonable meanings for those terms, there are many Actions
> contrary to the NAP that any libertarian would agree are correct ones.

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

> Therefore, the "principle" is not a complete and sufficient basis to
> decided whether any human Action will or will not optimally increase
> the Lifetime Happiness of the Actor, and because of that, the NAP is
> not correctly described as a principle at all.

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

> [The NAP formulation that Paul used above is a slightly modified one
> of Walter Block's in his article, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of
> Libertarianism" - http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
> An even worse version is that of L. Neil Smith: "No one has the right,
> under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
> being, nor to delegate its initiation." The article at Wikipedia
> includes both these versions and includes the following sentence
> following Smith's: "This is considered an imprecise formulation, since
> it explicitly ignores context." In actuality all of the versions,
> including Ayn Rand's that is mentioned first are "imprecise" and
> "ignore context".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Formulations **Kitty]

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

> >> Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
> >> which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
> >> consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
> >> self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
> >> ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
> >> and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
> >> interacts).
> >
> > As a libertarian, I defend anonymity as a choice.
>
> Roy, you (and many others) are confusing the two completely different
> aspects of a human Action:
> 1) whether or not a given human Action should be *Permitted* by all
> other humans, with "Permitted" meaning that the Action is neither
> prevented, circumvented, punished, has required Restitution or in any
> manner is opposed by an Action of Responsible Harm to the Actor, and
> 2) whether or not a human Action should be evaluated by each human
> with respect to its effects on hir ability to optimally increase hir
> Lifetime Happiness (for all humans at the same time), and to act in
> ways that do *not* involve any Action of Responsible Harm to the
> Actor, but are intended to effect a change in the Actor such that in
> future hir related Actions *do* promote the ability of each human to
> optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same time.
>
> Note the essential difference between those two human reactions to
> another human action described immediately above. The first involves
> an Act of Responsible Harm (initiation of physical force is one simple
> example of an Action that generally causes Responsible Harm), but the
> second does not.
>
> Attempting to Act in an anonymous manner is clearly an Action of the
> second kind, and any Action that does not involve Responsible Harm
> must be an allowable Action in response, or else one does not have
> full Liberty. So under the NSC any human may attempt to be anonymous,
> if s/he wishes, without Breaching the NSC, but any other human may
> also decide to not associate or in any manner interact with anyone
> attempting to be anonymous and to persuade others to do likewise (all
> of which are forms of Social Preferencing), also without Breaching the
> NSC. Since SMN theory implies that attempting to be anonymous has
> negative effects on the ability of all humans (including the Actor) to
> optimally increase their Lifetime Happinesses, I choose to Social
> Preference against anyone who acts in that manner. Note carefully that
> Social Preferencing includes any Action that does not Effect
> Responsible Harm to another human.

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

> > I believe information is owned by the individual who created it. If
> > personal information is an individual's property, then unauthorized
> > use of that information must, by definition, be considered theft.
>
> No. Information has fundamentally different Attributes

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

> (for one, the
> ability to make exact copies) than either Material Existents or Real
> Estate. In terms of the NSC metaphysics, Information is a Level-1 or
> greater Existent, or in vernacular terms one may describe Information
> as pure "structure". For that reason, the way humans should best
> interact relative to Information will not be and cannot be the same as
> the best ways to interact with respect to Material Existents and Real
> Estate (which are each also different from the other). Note that
> "should best interact" is defined as all Actions that will enable each
> person to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same
> time.
>
> > However, no rational libertarian will recommend a lifestyle of
> > absolute anonymity, precisely because it will likely carry with it
> > the cost of negative social preferencing. i.e. - not releasing
> > credit history information will most likely result in distrust by
> > lenders.
>
> Yes, anyone with *incorrect* notions will always find that the
> exigencies of practical reality will cause them to make exceptions to
> such notions. In fact, as a general rule of logic, if exceptions to a
> principle or axiom need to be made that is an indication that the
> principle or axiom is fundamentally invalid, usually because it is not
> dealing with the root and basis in reality of what is really needed to
> make such decisions.

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

> Such a complete and consistent root and basis for
> making all ethical decisions is precisely what SMN theory supplies
> (which is why I think of it as an extension and correction of
> Objectivism making it consistent and complete), and which no
> libertarian principles do.

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

> However, there is another problem with your statement above of which
> you are likely not aware. The word "rational" applied to Choices and
> Actions is a very slippery and tricky word to nail down. I had great
> difficultly myself arriving at any consistent definition for Rational,
> which I found that I could not do without (even though Mises in his
> seminal work "Human Action" totally eschews the "rational" notion). I
> have never seen any adequate definition of "rational" from either a
> libertarian or even an Objectivist (for the latter of whom it is very
> fundamental - being called "irrational" is the worst possible insult
> that an Objectivist can make).

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

> > But, if you want to be a social outcast or hermit, it's your choice.
>
> Yes, but no one can both take an Action and also not get the
> consequences. That is contrary to reality.

Exactly my point. It's a choice.

> The consequences of one's
> Actions bear the same relationship to the Actions as does a physical
> reaction to an action - recall Newton's third law of motion law: "To
> each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In the
> case of anonymity the consequences are both strong Social Preferencing
> against the person who attempts to be anonymous, and the loss of many
> contact and connection opportunities from which s/he might otherwise
> benefit.
>
> > Fraud is another matter. I consider fraud to be a use of force.
>
> Roy, excuse me for having to say this and not meaning to insult you,
> but you are merely spouting the standard libertarian mantra.

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

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

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

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

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

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

> The standard libertarian (and Objectivist) answer (which I used to
> swallow too, because I had no better answer) is that fraud is force
> because if the defrauded person had known the truth, then s/he would
> have needed to be forced to make the exchanged on the same terms.

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

> But
> that answer is logically a false description of what actually occurs,
> and thus skirts and prevents the discovery of a more fundamental
> reason for why fraud must generally be held to be a Violation in order
> for there to be optimal social order.
>
> I have not capitalized the word "fraud" because it is not even defined
> in the NSC.

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

> The reason for this is because fraud is but one important
> example covered by the more general concept of Responsibility under
> a Valid Contract, which, in order to be valid, must have both
> Termination Clauses and Breach Penalty Clauses. Under the NSC, a
> Breach of a Valid Contract is grounds for a Charge of Breach of the
> NSC itself and consequent Revocation of all NSC Privileges if found
> Guilty.
>
> > Misrepresenting or withholding relevant information, so as to
> > influence another's choice must be considered a restitutionable
> > offense.
>
> Even if that were true, it does not equate such action to the
> initiation of physical force. But once again it is not always true
> that such a fraud is either a Violation (the NSC more general term
> replacing "offense") or requires restitution. In fact, Responsible
> Harm to a person is the more fundamental determiner of whether or
> not s/he should be Restituted.
>
> Here is an example:
> I will use the example where I roll back the odometer of my car,
> before selling it to you, because I want to get you to pay me more
> money than any reasonable person would consider the car to be worth
> based on the actual number of miles it has been driven.
> But I will not exhaustively consider all the different situations
> related to the NSC that might relate to this (whether under a Valid
> Contract or not, whether the Contract contains the odometer reading or
> not, all the harms that could result, the possible Breach of the NSC
> involved, etc). Rather I want to simply address one completely
> possible situation:
>
> I am as certain as I can be that the car is in such excellent shape
> that it will run and last as if the odometer reading to which I set
> it were true, and furthermore the car actually lasts even longer and with
> less cost than most cars that have the odometer readings at which it
> was sold.
>
> My question in this case is then why should such an action even if
> found out years later be deemed to be an offense? And what could
> possibly be the Restitution for such offense since the Lifetime
> Happiness of the purchaser is at least as high as it would have been
> if I had not taken that action.
>
> Now you may say: but the purchaser *has* had hir Lifetime Happiness
> reduced because s/he paid more money for the car than s/he would have
> if s/he had known the true odometer reading. However, this assumes
> that I would have been willing to sell the car at that lower price
> knowing full well that it was worth more, so the logic is invalid.
>
> In fact, this is one of those situations that can only reasonably be
> solved by assuming the full principle of value for value is understood
> and used by both parties. In that case, I would have not turned the
> odometer back. Rather I would have left it as is and done my utmost
> to persuade the buyer of its stellar condition even at that advanced
> mileage. Then the buyer could decide for hirself whether s/he wanted
> to pay me for the worth of the car now or later once s/he had fully
> determined it (plus interest, of course).
>
> It is also interesting that you said "withholding relevant
> information" because in my experience most libertarians do not agree
> with you here. Most of them invoke the "buyer beware principle"

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

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

> (the onus to find out information is on the buyer not the seller) to
> maintain that so long as you do not say or clearly imply anything
> false during a transaction you are within your "rights". I, of course,
> strongly disagree with that as I have done for over 30 years.

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

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

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

> - relevant
> to whom, when and in what way? In fact, I defy you to give any general
> and complete definition. I certainly can't (but don't need to,
> because the SMN and NSC handle this sort of potential harm entirely
> differently).
>
> > Please understand that I am not defending libertarian concepts or
> > libertarians, as such. I am simply using what is familiar to me as a
> > basis for exploring your ideas. I think our difference are probably
> > more semantic than substantive.
>
> Our differences are most certainly semantic, but only because of the
> multiple meanings that the words you use have in the vernacular
> language (my uneducated guess is that English is probably the worst in
> this respect).

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

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

> But more importantly than that, we have major differences because you
> are not basing your ethical statements on fundamental enough concepts
> to enable them to be consistent and complete (to not allow contrary
> actions that both fit your statement, and for any action, to enable a
> decision of whether it is right or wrong).

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

> >> << but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
> >> implementation. <<
> >>
> >> Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
> >> simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
> >> any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
> >> must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
> >> epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.
> >>
> > Yes! It is extremely important to recognize the difference between
> > what is theoretically possible, and what is practically possible in
> > the real world. I believe the inability of many, if not most, to
> > understand this difference, is the primary source of both historical
> > and current social tribulations. Any social system that ignores, or
> > seeks to somehow change, the reality of human nature is doomed to
> > failure.
>
> You have said it very well. My only criticism is with your phrase
> "theoretically possible". I maintain that if some principle or theory
> cannot be brought to practical operation, then it is not actually even
> *theoretically* possible. It is simply invalid and meaningless.

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

> Philosophy instructors delight in raising all sorts of theoretical
> examples such as unicorns, truth machines, people who cannot lie,
> people who always lie, etc. I reject all of these as useful for any
> purpose whatsoever. In addition, while I again totally agree with you
> about the futility of trying to change the reality of human nature,
> one has to very carefully examine human nature to ascertain just what
> is its *true* reality, before one decides whether or not something is
> contrary to that nature. I would maintain that the major problem with
> the world today is that the vast majority of people are acting
> contrary to their true nature, mainly because they have not yet
> discovered the fundamental aspects of that nature.

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

> Kitty thought that the following quote from a story on MSNBC that she
> just saw today fitted right in here (and I agree):
>
> "Can Star Trek's non-violent utopia happen?" -
> Tricorders and transporters are cool, but the most radical invention
> on "Star Trek" may have been its vision of a peaceful humanity.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30626488/from/ET/
>
> "I do think humans might someday reach more peaceful coexistence if we
> don't destroy the planet first, though I doubt it will be utopia,"
> said Dennis Fox, emeritus professor of legal studies and psychology at
> the University of Illinois at Springfield. "If utopia does come, it
> won't be because human nature changes
<http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080502-strange-humans.html>,
> or because some governmental authority or alien race forces it upon
> us, but because we manage to create new social structures more
> conducive to satisfying human needs and values."

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

> Naturally both I and Kitty strongly think that SMN theory and its
> twin implementations via the NSC and Social Preferencing *are* that
> "new social structure[] more conducive to satisfying human needs and
> values". Unfortunately neither Fox nor anyone else of academic, or
> media stature, yet knows that it exists.
>
> >> << However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
> >> envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
> >> many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
> >> government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
> >> for you too. <<
> >>
> >> I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
> >> of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
> >> to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
> >> begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
> >> lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
> >> apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
> >> works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
> >> continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
> >> oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
> >> up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
> >> greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
> >> evolving self-ordered society.
> > And here is where I see the practical getting in the way of the
> > possible.
>
> We are not saying that it will be easy. If it were that easy it would
> have occurred already. All we are saying is that it is possible and
> that it must be tried (all other ways have failed).

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

> >> << Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
> >> exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
> >> propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
> >> the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
> >> People Problem." <<
> >>
> >> No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
> >> society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
> >> but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
> >> you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
> >> eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
> >> and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
> >> either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
> >> "school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
> >> only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
> >> practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
> >> irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
> >> hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
> >> continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
> >> "practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
> >> result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
> >> supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
> >> everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
> >> Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
> >> governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
> >> self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
> >> vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
> >> to those same people.
> > I wish we lived in a world where we could simply ignore the
> > "stupid."
>
> Then first, start looking after your health by all possible methods so
> that you can have a very long life, and second, get involved with the
> SelfSIP project.

Thanks. Perhaps.

> > Maybe someday there will be too few of them to exert control over
> > our lives, through their support of governments that are NOT
> > inclined to let anyone just opt out of their web of control without
> > a fight.
>
> The key is to be subtle, slow, non-violent, mostly unseen, highly
> dispersed and to keep totally clear of hot issues (such as weapons,
> drugs, money laundering, overt tax evasion methods, replacement
> currencies, etc).

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

> >> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
> >> precise and scholarly (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
> >> I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
> >> intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
> >> of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
> >> few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
> >> and/or desire to understand. <<
> >>
> >> It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
> >> readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
> >> very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
> >> libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
> >> definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
> >> did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
> >> during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
> >> highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
> >> taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
> >> super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
> >> course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
> >> years in the late 70s and early 80s.
> >>
> >> It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
> >> individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
> >> ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
> >> of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
> >> question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
> >> implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
> >> have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
> >> :-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
> >> then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
> >> interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
> >> social actions.
> >
> > I read some of your other foundational materials and reread the
> > Meta-Needs treatise again. I now have even more questions, concerns,
> > and critiques than I did before. But, I will save them for another
> > thread.
>
> Good, but I have already noted that your next message (in response to
> the first part of my reply to this message - which I realize now it
> was a mistake to post before this was ready), did not address any
> direct text or ideas within SMN, NSC or anything else on SelfSIP.org

I have tried to correct that (somewhat) in this post.

> >> << (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
> >> with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
> >> beyond the scope of this article.) <<
> >>
> >> Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
> >> all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
> >> rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
> >> reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
> >> picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.
> >>
> >> We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
> >> too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
> >> theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
> >> fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
> >> between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
> >> Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
> >> changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
> >> although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
> >> conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
> >> understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
> >> idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
> >> only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
> >> methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
> >> will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
> >> exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
> >> discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
> >>
> >> << I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
> >> that there's more of them than there are of you. <<
> >>
> >> The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
> >> These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
> >> - granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
> >> negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
> >> ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
> >> individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
> >> novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
> >> mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
> >> and voluntarily deal only with the latter.
> >>
> >> Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
> >> all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
> >> system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
> >> self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
> >> doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
> >> consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
> >> current government interference between parties - have a contractual
> >> relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
> >> is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
> >> those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
> >> (I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
> >> other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
> >> when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
> >> "box".
> >
> > All sounds good, but a whole lot easier said than done. Though, I'm
> > not saying that it isn't worth the effort.
>
> But you need to thoroughly understand the SMN and the NSC to fully
> understand that it can be done and how it actually is all done, there
> and with the addition of strong Social Preferencing.

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


--roy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original comment threat clipped - Separate discussion and irrelevant to comments
below.

Kitty,
Interesting, and surprising response.

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

I respect your and Paul's background. This is why I am talking to you. But it
doesn't mean I should accept what you say without question. And, that's all that
I am doing, questioning.

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

I do not feel obligated to defend or explain what other libertarians may have
said or written. I read Friedman's thoughts and Paul's response to them at the
above link. An interesting discussion. But even though I call myself a
libertarian, Friedman is not me, nor are his views necessarily mine. The fact
that Paul has addressed Friedman's ideas, does not mean that Paul has addressed
mine.

I think the problem may be the word libertarian. I has too many implied meanings
that I do not completely subscribe to. I think for the purpose of discussions at
MoreLife I must declare that I am no longer a libertarian, nor a Libertarian.
Although I may agree with some libertarian ideas, I am no longer willing to
defend anyone's ideas but my own.

That said, I don't understand the source of Paul's frustration. Certainly, it
cannot be that I don't accept everything he says without question. Learning SMN
is a little like learning a foreign language. Are you saying that I must be 100%
versed with all the nuances of SMN before I can ask questions, or make comments?

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

Forgive me for responding too quickly. Believe it or not, I spent at least a
full 8 hours reading, studying, and writing my comments. Did I read and study
enough? Maybe not, but my comments were well considered.

I'm sure it took Paul years of thought to put together his theory on SMN. He
must understand it better than anyone. That's why I'm asking him the questions,
and bringing up things that do not "seem" to make sense to me. My goal is not to
prove him wrong, but to gather enough information so that HE can prove ME wrong.
Asking questions of the expert after read his writings is my way of doing it.

I am sure that continually re-explaining concepts and answering the same dumb
questions over and over again from non-academic types like me can get to be very
frustrating. I apologize.  But at least, I am one who is willing to ask the
questions. Many I'm sure reject Paul's ideas out of hand. Who needs them. You
may find some that accept everything with no question. Who needs them! But then,
there are those like me who want to learn, and are willing to go through the
learning process. Aren't we the kind of people you DO need?

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

If explaining your concepts to an new member like myself is of no value to you,
then please stop. I had hoped that I might bring up issues that would help
sharpen your arguments to other people like myself who are new to SMN ideas.

> If you have interest in further dialog with either of us here, then
> you will have to go back to the SMN treatise and tell us *where* you
> think its definitions, premises or logic is flawed. It is *not* good
> enough to merely tell us that you disagree with some conclusion. If
> you cannot tell us *where* the premises or the logic in a conclusion
> is flawed, then you cannot logically disagree with the conclusion.

I don't believe I have disagreed without backing it up with an argument I
thought to rational. Also, my comments where specifically in response to your
comments. I was not aware (at first) that all of my comments had to be phrased
in terms of SMN in order to be considered valid. But in my last post, I made an
honest effort to do just that.

> If
> you do not understand these things, you do not adequately understand
> the logic of formulating definitions and the logic of deductive
> reasoning (and, unfortunately, both were weaknesses of Ayn Rand and
> are still of most libertarian writers).

As I said, I am not an academic. This does not mean I am irrational, nor that I
cannot understand and use deductive reasoning. It simply means I don't fully
understand the language.... yet.

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

Paul, please do not feel obligated to respond to any of my earlier comments. Do
so only if you feel there is any value that may come of it for yourself. I am a
strong believer in value-for-value associations. In the future I will ask only
questions that are specifically referenced to text from SMN, from the contract,
or from your other writings.
--roy

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "r.roylutz" <randalllutz@...> wrote:
>
> Original comment threat clipped - Separate discussion and irrelevant
>  to comments below.
>
> Kitty,
> Interesting, and surprising response.
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty" wrote:
> > --roy
> >
> > [Roy, please recall Paul's introductory comments about his background,
> > the purpose of which was to show you that he had read *all* the
> > contemporary libertarian and Objectivist arguments by 25 years ago.
> > (This includes every word that Ayn Rand every published up until the
> > mid 1970s, after which she published nothing fundamental, but merely
> > commented on current events (mostly political). (I have read most of
> > Rand's published writings through to her death, even before meeting
> > Paul.)
>
> I respect your and Paul's background. This is why I am talking to
> you. But it doesn't mean I should accept what you say without
> question.

And I and Paul agree with this approach. No one should simply accept
statements as true that are not supported by credible evidence and are
not derived logically.

> And, that's all that I am doing, questioning.

But Roy, you have not been *asking* any questions. There hasn't even
been any questioning tone from you. Instead you have been trying to
tell us what the libertarian philosophy says, that it seems quite
clear to you, and what you would do in the particular situations
related to Paul's examples. You have not asked Paul any questions
about how some portion of his Social Meta-Needs theory solves a
particular problem or avoids the various extreme exceptions ("life
boat situations") and some, not so exceptional, for which libertarianism
and objectivism either provide no guide or which are clearly acceptable
examples that their general guiding principles would forbid.

As just one example, in your message of 5/8/09 (to which Paul's reply
was made yesterday) you wrote in response to Paul's partial
explanation of why "rights" is a meaningless concept (though the idea
that "rights" is a valid concept is more fully refuted in the SMN
essay itself):

<<A right, as I define it above, is an intangible, just as happiness
is an intangible. It none the less exists. It's existence can be
deduced based on rationality. My argument is this: A human is a human.
It is part of the nature of humans to be 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) A right then is the expression of an individual human doing
what is in the nature of humans to do. And therefore, to deny this
"right" is to deny the human-ness of an individual.<<

You asked no questions about what Paul wrote as the reasons why
"rights" are non-existents, you presented no logical failings on his
part - you simply ignored all he wrote and proceeded on with mostly
restating the standard libertarian and objectivist lines. Your reply
was what I call "talking past" rather than searching for truth among
the writings of someone else.
If instead you had been "questioning", you would have actually asked
questions - a possibility is something like:
"I've always thought of rights as something intangible, such as
emotions (happiness for example). So how is this not an acceptable way
to view this idea that has served pretty well for hundreds of years?"

> > Paul is getting very frustrated by the lack of anything new coming out
> > of this discussion and your apparent inability to see the importance
> > of the flaws that he is continually pointing out (some of which other
> > libertarian philosopher's before him have also written about but were
> > unable to find a solution - as an example, see
> > http://selfsip.org/dialogues/dfriedman/index.html ).
>
> I do not feel obligated to defend or explain what other libertarians
> may have said or written.

But this is actually what you have been doing in your messages.

> I read Friedman's thoughts and Paul's response to them at the above
> link. An interesting discussion. But even though I call myself a
> libertarian, Friedman is not me, nor are his views necessarily mine.
> The fact that Paul has addressed Friedman's ideas, does not mean
> that Paul has addressed mine.

Then ask *questions* about how some problem is solved by the SMN
theory and the NSC or make some clear statement of what problems of
human interaction you think SMN theory and the NSC does not solve or
does not solve correctly, in your opinion. But in the later case you
must also say *why* you do not agree with the solution offered by SMN
theory and the NSC together with Social Preferencing.

> I think the problem may be the word libertarian. I has too many
> implied meanings that I do not completely subscribe to. I think for
> the purpose of discussions at MoreLife I must declare that I am no
> longer a libertarian, nor a Libertarian.

Why not simply describe yourself as a liberty promoter? Or even just a
searcher for truth? Is that not what you are trying to do? However, it
would be best if you had a full understanding of what is meant by
"liberty" so that when you make such a statement you can head off at
the pass, any misinterpretations - which are not uncommon since so
very many people use the words "liberty" and "freedom" interchangeably.
So here I suggest the detailed annotation for the definitions of those
words in the NSC -
http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotations/freedom.html

> Although I may agree with some libertarian ideas, I am no longer
> willing to defend anyone's ideas but my own.

Few ideas that any individual has are totally unique to hir - having
no association at all with ideas communicated in some manner from
someone else. However, until a person well understands a complex idea,
which includes the concepts and principles on which it is based, s/he
cannot "defend" it. In fact it is a process of breaking complex ideas
down to their fundamentals concepts and principles, examining them and
digesting them with previously accepted valid ideas that is necessary
for integration into what could be called one's own set of ideas. In
this process some previous ideas will be determined to be invalid -
not true for reality - and be replaced by the newer ones. This
properly should be an ongoing process. I know it has been for me
and Paul.

"Defending" one's ideas adequately requires that one fully understand
them *and* that they be defensible, that they reflect reality and have
no inconsistencies or ambiguities. However most people have beliefs -
ideas they hold without doing the examination/integration previously
mentioned or ideas that have no evidence in reality. For myself I do
not try to "defend" Paul's theory. There are parts of it that I have
not fully integrated, mostly because of lack of time to do the
examination necessary (I think of it as "chewing", a term picked up in
objectivism). But events do bring occasion for questions of Paul for
further clarification on principles - and sometimes just a "refresher
course". Breaking some habits of thinking from the 50+ years preceding
Paul's discoveries is still necessary :)

> That said, I don't understand the source of Paul's frustration.
> Certainly, it cannot be that I don't accept everything he says
> without question. Learning SMN is a little like learning a foreign
> language. Are you saying that I must be 100% versed with all the
> nuances of SMN before I can ask questions, or make comments?

I would consider it inconsiderate to ask questions without having
already read the material, but in no way is it necessary to be "100%
versed with all the nuances of SMN before [you - or anyone] can ask
questions, or make comments. I've suggested to a few others who are
very interested in Paul's ideas, to make notes - questions and
comments - as they read since it is very likely that further along
they will read the answers. But if something is a stumbling block to
understanding what has been written (even with the use of a dictionary
:), please do copy out the portion and make a post with the question.

> > And I understand Paul's frustration since I note that you completed
> > this last response in less than 24 hours after Paul's message was
> > posted - a very brief period of awake time free from work-related
> > activities in order to fully digest the related material in the SMN
> > essay, the NSC, its annotations and other linked/supplementary
> > writings, work that took Paul literally years of thought and writing
> > to create in a logically sound fashion.
>
> Forgive me for responding too quickly. Believe it or not, I spent at
> least a full 8 hours reading, studying, and writing my comments.
> Did I read and study enough? Maybe not, but my comments were well
> considered.

But your responses, Roy, have not been to the substance of what Paul
wrote in his messages to you. Nor have you to date copied out any text
from the SMN theory, the NSC, its annotations, or any of the other
writings by Paul and made a specific comment or asked a specific
question about it. It is only in doing this that any substantive
discussion on how SMN theory is (or is not, if you think that to be
the case) a good basis for optimal human interaction, can take place.

> I'm sure it took Paul years of thought to put together his theory on
> SMN. He must understand it better than anyone.

Yes, this is the case for the latter :>) Even though I have been with
him through the entire development (which began in formal writing in
2002, though he wrote in the 70s too) and helped him in many ways by
being a sounding board, I do not at all understand it as well as he
does.

> That's why I'm asking him the questions, and bringing up things that
> do not "seem" to make sense to me.

But again, Roy. This is not what you have done to date - even in the
last message from you that is yet unresponded to by Paul. If you would
copy out those portions from Paul's writings that "do not "seem" to
make sense to [you]" and explain why it does "not make sense" or ask
your questions, that would be fine and we'd very much like to see just
that.

> My goal is not to prove him wrong, but to gather enough information
> so that HE can prove ME wrong. Asking questions of the expert after
> read his writings is my way of doing it.

So *ask* your questions, Roy - specifically relating them to quoted
text.

> I am sure that continually re-explaining concepts and answering the
> same dumb questions over and over again from non-academic types like
> me can get to be very frustrating. I apologize.  But at least, I am
> one who is willing to ask the questions.

Once again, Roy, if you were actually asking questions Paul would not
have voiced frustration, especially if they were in regard to specific
text he had written. But you have not been doing this.

> Many I'm sure reject Paul's ideas out of hand. Who needs them.

If they are individuals who do that and they will not examine their
own ideas against something different, then such individuals are of no
value in regards to SMN and Self-SIP currently. They may be the types
who will only be convinced once they see others practicing the
principles and successfully optimizing their lifetime hapinesses.

> You may find some that accept everything with no question. Who needs
> them! But then, there are those like me who want to learn, and are
> willing to go through the learning process. Aren't we the kind of
> people you DO need?

I assure you that I and Paul very much want only truly reasoning
individuals involved with Self-SIP. And reading and asking questions
is part of the learning process - but you have not been asking any
questions about what you are reading. You haven't asked any questions
about what Paul has written in his essays nor have you actually asked
any clarifying questions regarding what he has written in his replies
to you. Additionally you have not really addressed any of the points
Paul has raised. It's like you do not even understand that there are
certain problems - like you just don't see them.

You do not appear to follow what Paul has written at all. But you
don't ask any questions to clarify any confusion on your part. Paul
has not been saying what he has in order to get the libertarian view,
but this is what you have been giving  - or at least your version of
it.

Since you say now that you will no longer be "defending", I hope that
you will look afresh at how a reasoned discussion needs to proceed in
order for actual learning to take place.

> > Both I and Paul never leave anyone's substantive message unaddressed,
> > so he will be making a reply to most of the above message after he
> > completes his point by point response of your previous message
> > (#2019). However, we will not then accept any response to these since
> > the logical level of your responses is of no value to us.
>
> If explaining your concepts to an new member like myself is of no
> value to you, then please stop. I had hoped that I might bring up
> issues that would help sharpen your arguments to other people like
> myself who are new to SMN ideas.

Roy, you have not brought up any issues that are not already addressed
by the SMN theory itself. Except for the fact that you wrote that you
had already read the SMN essay, I would think that you had written
your comments in previous messages here about libertarianism and what
you or other libertarians think or would do *without* having read
"Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction".

It is very difficult to discuss with someone who does not appear to
understand when "definitions" are not actually defining, or possibly
not even being attempted, and when "principles" are not at all any
form of clear guidance for many types of actions to which they
apparently relate.

> > If you have interest in further dialog with either of us here, then
> > you will have to go back to the SMN treatise and tell us *where* you
> > think its definitions, premises or logic is flawed. It is *not* good
> > enough to merely tell us that you disagree with some conclusion. If
> > you cannot tell us *where* the premises or the logic in a conclusion
> > is flawed, then you cannot logically disagree with the conclusion.
>
> I don't believe I have disagreed without backing it up with an
> argument I thought to rational. Also, my comments where specifically
> in response to your comments.

While you have interweaved your replies and your text is related to
previous text by Paul, you have not actually responded to the
*meaning* of what Paul has written. Perhaps this is what you have seen
done in other places and is what is accepted by many as logical
discussion - but, Roy, it is not! This may all be part of
unfamiliarity on your part with what constitutes *logical* argument
(as opposed to haranguing, chatting or "talking at/past"). I suggest
that you invest some time in studying critical thinking, including the
meaning and construction of concepts and definitions and the use of
logic, since without an appreciation for and ability to use these, you
will be hampered in truly understanding any but rather superficial
writings. Additionally, a person who is not versed in the basic
methods of critical thinking (though formal education in it is not a
necessity) will not be using logical reasoning (may not even realize
that it exists) and will often fail to see inconsistencies and
ambiguities the words and actions of others.

(It occurs to me that there is a similarity here to a discussion with
someone I know who has no real understanding of parts of speech and
so, for example, use of who vs whom is completely haphazard. He does
not understand the principles for their use (subjective vs objective
case) - he never learned them in school - and so his writings contain
frequent misusage. And when it is correct it's merely by chance. So
now he's been doing some studying online to correct this lack on his
part.)

> I was not aware (at first) that all of my comments had to be phrased
> in terms of SMN in order to be considered valid.

No "phras[ing] in terms of SMN" is required; simply logical argument
or preferably questions on those portions of Paul's writings that are
unclear in one way or another.

> But in my last post, I made an honest effort to do just that.

But picking terms out of the Natural Social Contract and using them
without full comprehension will not aid any discussion or your
understanding of the concepts in the SMN theory.

> > If
> > you do not understand these things, you do not adequately understand
> > the logic of formulating definitions and the logic of deductive
> > reasoning (and, unfortunately, both were weaknesses of Ayn Rand and
> > are still of most libertarian writers).
>
> As I said, I am not an academic. This does not mean I am irrational,

Such a conclusion would be a very long leap of implication. Simply
because a person is not a professional philosopher/teacher or even a
formal student (what is meant by "an academic", short for
"academician") it does not at all follow that such a person is
irrational - does not take actions to optimize hir lifetime happiness,
no matter how bizarre someone else might think a particular action.
(The psychiatric use of the word is being ignored as philosophically
meaningless.) Please see Paul's discussion of the meaning of Rational
Action (yes, even though difficult, he does define it) in the
annotation for its definition in the NSC.

> nor that I cannot understand and use deductive reasoning.

But use of deductive reasoning is something that you have not
demonstrated so far and I suspect that you may not really understand
what it really is and how to do. I think that this is a weakness that
a great many people have, not just you, Roy. However it is not
something that you cannot correct. I am not familiar with the quality
of what is available online, but I suggest that you do some serious
investigation and reading in the area of critical thinking, including
what are definitions, concepts and basic logic, from various sources.

> It simply means I don't fully understand the language.... yet.

We are not interested in people simply changing from one jargon to
another. Use of the terms included in the  SMN theory, defined
currently at the beginning of the NSC, without understanding is of no
value and can actually be detrimental to the furtherance of the ideas
themselves. So once again, read and make notes of what is
confusing/troublesome to you and if you find after reading all the
related NSC annotations (often a reread is necessary) that you are
still confused/troubled, then please do formulate your questions, with
the quoted text, into a message to the group. This is how we recommend
that anyone bring forth questions and comments regarding what they
have read.

> > However, if you have a question regarding a specific premise or the
> > logic that follows, then please quote that portion of Paul's text
> > and phrase your question. **Kitty]
>
> Paul, please do not feel obligated to respond to any of my earlier
> comments. Do so only if you feel there is any value that may come of
> it for yourself.

Paul is only doing so to make it clear where you have erred so as not
to confuse readers, and because there is the possibility that some
others reading his text will quickly see the logic in what he has
written - the only value to him (and me) will then be others who do
understand and respond positively now or in the future. And
"positively" means by demonstrating in their own words that they truly
do understand most of the principles, even if they still are unclear
on others and/or how they would be applied in the goal society.

> I am a strong believer in value-for-value associations. In the
> future I will ask only questions that are specifically referenced to
> text from SMN, from the contract, or from your other writings.

This last will help a great deal if you actually quote the material
and do *ask* questions, or make comments *directly* pertinent to the
text, such as "that won't work" or "that is incorrect for the this and
this reasons".

**Kitty

> --roy

META
Paul's and my initial reaction was not to accept the message below.
Please see the addendum following for the message I sent to Stephen
upon my notification by Yahoo of its presence in the queue and also
the email exchange that followed. **Kitty
/META


Boyd E. Haley, PhD is a professor at the University of Kentucky, where he has
been the chairman of the chemistry department since 1996 [from wikipedia]. He
has lead the development of OSR (oxidative stress relief), which has obtained
nutritional supplement status and is being marketed as an antioxidant, although
it was developed as a mercury chelator. Since it was his desire to get it to as
many people as possible as quickly as possible, it is being marketed as an
antioxidant and not a chelator.

It improved GSH/GSSG ratios in one trial (see
http://www.autismekanbehandles.no/publisoft/UserFiles/file/01_03_Haley%5B1%5D.pd\
f, page 52):

>This data was collected from a single clinic where the subjects varied
>in age from 8 to 73 years old and were 5 and 5 male and female. All
>were in reasonable health with no obvious bacterial infections.
>GSH/GSSG ratios increased in all primarily due to the drop in GSSG
>levels in all subjects. GSH levels remained relatively constant and
>increased slightly in 7 of 10. The average tGSH/GSSG ratio almost
>doubled caused by a near average halving of the GSSG levels.

Haley's OSR is lipophilic, and the document I linked wrote that it is not toxic
at 5g/kg or at 1g/kg in mice over 28 days (page 71).

Haley outlines some reasons for not making claims regarding mercury chelation
here: http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1401213. Hopefully he will be able
to publish data showing OSR's ability to protect against mercury toxicity in a
rat model at some point.

StephenB


[********ADDENDUM*****************
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: MODERATE -- stephen@... posted to morelife
Date:  Mon, 18 May 2009 21:56:22 -0400
From:  Kitty Antonik Wakfer <kitty@...>
Organization:  MoreLife
To:  Stephen Boulet <stephen@...>
CC:  Paul Wakfer <paul@...>

Hello Stephen,

Your message below currently in the queue has no relationship to
anything at MoreLife as far as I and Paul can see. If you think it
does or should be considered, you haven't stated so - you'll have to
make a case before we let a message on this subject be included at
MoreLife Yahoo.

Besides the above, this clip sounds more like an advertisement without
any links to any peer-reviewed published results of a trial. The
number of people involved in the referred to "trial" make it of
virtually no scientific use, the toxicity study length is totally
unacceptable (acute only), and finally there is no information on what
this item actually is. Given only this much information, we wouldn't
take it even if we had it available for free.

Therefore the message is not acceptable as it is. However, if you want
to redo the message and *ask* if this item should be considered as an
important potentially life-extending compound on MoreLife, then we
will accept such a message.

**Kitty


On 05/18/2009 05:35 PM, Yahoo! Groups Notification wrote:

- [Yahoo system message deleted.]

--copy of message deleted--
-----------------end of email------------------

The following is Paul's reply this afternoon (5/19) to Stephen's
response to me. All of Stephen's message is included.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: MODERATE -- stephen@... posted to morelife
Date:  Tue, 19 May 2009 16:12:13 -0400
From:  Paul Wakfer <paul@...>
Organization:  MoreLife
To:  stephen@...
CC:  Kitty Antonik Wakfer <kitty@...>

On 05/19/2009 02:35 PM, stephen@... wrote:
>> Hello Stephen,
>>
>> Your message below currently in the queue has no relationship to
>> anything at MoreLife as far as I and Paul can see. If you think it does
>> or should be considered, you haven't stated so - you'll have to make a
>> case before we let a message on this subject be included at MoreLife
>> Yahoo.
>>
> It is related to life extension via metal detoxification and improvement
> in cellular redox status, so it would seem to be a Morelife topic. I
> assume that you still want to have discussion about improving health?

Stephen, There are literally hundreds of substances and procedures
that someone thinks has some relationship to health and/or longevity
and which are documented in some fashion on or off the Internet. We
have no desire to cover them all on the MoreLife website or the Yahoo
group.
The MoreLife Yahoo group description states:

<<Posts to this group are only acceptable when they are specifically
addressed to text already in place on the websites (or to an ongoing
discussion of such text begun on this group or elsewhere) or when they
are suggestions for alterations or changes to those websites, which
are supported by logical and effective reasons why such changes would
be beneficial for the purposes of the websites.<<

Your message clearly does not fit these criteria, unless you supply
"logical and effective reasons why" the substance that you are
introducing is "beneficial for the purposes of the website".
As for discussion "about improving health", yes we want that as it
applies to general methods of improving length and quality of life.
However, we do not attempt to cover specialized health problems such
as autism. As for "metal detoxification", that is always best
accomplished by changing over to a healthy lifestyle rather than
anything directed to it alone. This is the same with any particular
diseases and dysfunctions. They are always best handled by a total
reorientation of one's lifestyle to a much healthier activity and
state, rather than aiming the particular disease or dysfunction. This
again is why we do not deal with any individual diseases and
dysfunctions, although we are happy to report the effects of generally
health promoting substances and methods on such particular diseases
and dysfunctions.
With respect to "cellular redox status", while all biogerontologists
seem to agree the many of the negative effect in diseases and
dysfunctions of aging are the result of oxidation effects after
hundreds of studies, it is becoming clear that taking antioxidants
does little to help this generally, although in specific situations
they can be helpful. For example no pure antioxidant has had a life
extension effect in a mammalian model.

> If you don't think there is enough science behind it then that is
> another matter.

That is correct. As far as I can see there is no actual science *at
all* behind it. There is nothing published in any peer reviewed
journal, likely because the number of people included in the "trial"
is too small to generate any statistical significance. There is no
information about just what this substance is chemically, by which one
might have some idea of how it works, that it can work and that it
will not likely have negative effects when taken chronically. A mouse
test of toxicity for only 28 days is not sufficient evidence of
safety. As Kitty stated from the information that you have provided,
we would not take this substance even it were provided free to us.

Therefore, unless you can make a better case for why this is a
valuable substance for general health, well being and longevity, a
message about it is not appropriate.

>> Besides the above, this clip sounds more like an advertisement without
>> any links to any peer-reviewed published results of a trial. The number
>> of people involved in the referred to "trial" make it of virtually no
>> scientific use, the toxicity study length is totally unacceptable (acute
>> only), and finally there is no information on what this item actually
>> is. Given only this much information, we wouldn't take it even if we had
>> it available for free.
>>
> Fair enough. It hasn't received the level of open scrutiny you describe,
> at least to date. I have no financial stake in the product myself,

And Kitty certainly did not mean to imply nor had the slightest
thought that you did, even though the tone of the message and the
level of evidence was little different than many spam messages that we
have received on the group and have always deleted without posting.

> though
> I have used it and my son has too (he has high functioning autism and I
> would put this supplement in the list of the top several giving the most
> benefit).

It is great to hear that you are being successful in your efforts to
help him overcome this problem. For such a dysfunction, I too would be
more willing to try less than fully studied substances.

> I believe it to be a safer alternative to DMSA, though studies
> demonstrating its safety profile have yet to be published.

And that is the problem. Belief means very little and only to the
believer, until logical scientific studies have been done (which means
published in journals).

> The decision to take or not to take a supplement can be a judgment call.

Of course. I am not criticizing your decision to take it and to use it
for your son. However, the group is ours and ours must be the judgment
determining what we think is acceptable to appear on it.

> For example, has BPAP has been trialed in humans?

I don't recall and I don't have time to check right now, but at least
we know just what it is chemically and its mechanism of action has
been scientifically studied.

Stephen, I am sorry that we have upset you by this decision, because
you have been a valuable member of the group. As you continue to
follow this substance, if you find out just what it is and there is
some actual published information about it, then you are welcome to
send another message with the suggestion that you think the would be
an important addition to the health and life extension enhancement
diet of anyone, giving your reasons and evidence. I would then accept
your message and would respond with my thoughts about it and its
potential. But right now this "OSR" simply does not satisfy our
criteria for even considering.

--Paul
LATER: I and Kitty have, after further discussion, decided to release
your post with the email exchanges about it included as an
addendum, thereby providing readers with an understanding of our
reasoning for this and similar products/procedures.
---------end of email-----------

We did not examine any of the details in the file Stephen included for
reasonableness. This is because we are on a dial-up here in Harcourt
Park and have no desire to tie up our system for an extended period in
order to download a 71+ pdf of a "paper" that is not peer-reviewed.

**Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "spboulet" <stephen@...> wrote:
>>> Hello Stephen,
>>>
>>> Your message below currently in the queue has no relationship to
>>> anything at MoreLife as far as I and Paul can see. If you think it
>>> does
>>> or should be considered, you haven't stated so - you'll have to
>>> make a
>>> case before we let a message on this subject be included at MoreLife
>>> Yahoo.
>>>
>> It is related to life extension via metal detoxification and
>> improvement
>> in cellular redox status, so it would seem to be a Morelife topic. I
>> assume that you still want to have discussion about improving health?
>
> Stephen, There are literally hundreds of substances and procedures
> that someone thinks has some relationship to health and/or longevity
> and which are documented in some fashion on or off the Internet. We
> have no desire to cover them all on the MoreLife website or the
> Yahoo group. The MoreLife Yahoo group description states:
>
> <<Posts to this group are only acceptable when they are specifically
> addressed to text already in place on the websites (or to an ongoing
> discussion of such text begun on this group or elsewhere) or when
> they are suggestions for alterations or changes to those websites,
> which are supported by logical and effective reasons why such
> changes would be beneficial for the purposes of the websites.<<
>
> Your message clearly does not fit these criteria, unless you supply
> "logical and effective reasons why" the substance that you are
> introducing is "beneficial for the purposes of the website".
> As for discussion "about improving health", yes we want that as it
> applies to general methods of improving length and quality of life.
> However, we do not attempt to cover specialized health problems such
> as autism.

I used that as an anecdotal example about the value I have found in that
particular supplement, of course. It is often the case that interventions for a
given unhealthy condition also benefit healthy individuals. Diabetes is one
example in which both sufferers and healthy people can benefit from
anti-glycation agents.

> As for "metal detoxification", that is always best
> accomplished by changing over to a healthy lifestyle rather than
> anything directed to it alone. This is the same with any particular
> diseases and dysfunctions. They are always best handled by a total
> reorientation of one's lifestyle to a much healthier activity and
> state, rather than aiming the particular disease or dysfunction.
> This again is why we do not deal with any individual diseases and
> dysfunctions, although we are happy to report the effects of
> generally health promoting substances and methods on such particular
> diseases and dysfunctions.
> With respect to "cellular redox status", while all biogerontologists
> seem to agree the many of the negative effect in diseases and
> dysfunctions of aging are the result of oxidation effects after
> hundreds of studies, it is becoming clear that taking antioxidants
> does little to help this generally, although in specific situations
> they can be helpful. For example no pure antioxidant has had a life
> extension effect in a mammalian model.

This seems to be the case regarding life extension for antioxidants like vitamin
C. I wonder if it might not the case with others like superoxide dismutase.
There is also the life extension seen in acetyl-l-carnitine/R-alpha lipoic acid
combination, whose effects I grant are probably not from these substances'
purely antioxidant nature.

This particular antioxidant (OSR) is lipophilic and is claimed to cross the
blood-brain barrier, nearly double GSH/GSSG by halving GSSG in a small,
uncontrolled trial, and bind strongly to mercury in the hard-to-reach fatty
areas of the body. My thought was that it has some unique characteristics that
members of this group might be interested in hearing about, and that I might
personally benefit from any resulting discussion.

>> If you don't think there is enough science behind it then that is
>> another matter.
>>
> That is correct. As far as I can see there is no actual science *at
> all* behind it. There is nothing published in any peer reviewed
> journal, likely because the number of people included in the "trial"
> is too small to generate any statistical significance. There is no
> information about just what this substance is chemically,

It's N1,N3 -bis (2-mercaptoethyl)isophthalamide.

> by which
> one might have some idea of how it works, that it can work and that
> it will not likely have negative effects when taken chronically. A
> mouse test of toxicity for only 28 days is not sufficient evidence
> of safety. As Kitty stated from the information that you have
> provided, we would not take this substance even it were provided
> free to us.

Toxicity testing also took place in rats, resulting in an LD50 greater than 5
grams/kg; the actual LD50 wasn't established since toxicity did not occur at the
maximum dosage tested.

> Therefore, unless you can make a better case for why this is a
> valuable substance for general health, well being and longevity, a
> message about it is not appropriate.
>>> Besides the above, this clip sounds more like an advertisement
>>> without
>>> any links to any peer-reviewed published results of a trial. The
>>> number
>>> of people involved in the referred to "trial" make it of virtually
>>> no
>>> scientific use, the toxicity study length is totally unacceptable
>>> (acute
>>> only), and finally there is no information on what this item
>>> actually
>>> is. Given only this much information, we wouldn't take it even if
>>> we had
>>> it available for free.
>>>
>> Fair enough. It hasn't received the level of open scrutiny you
>> describe,
>> at least to date. I have no financial stake in the product myself,
>
> And Kitty certainly did not mean to imply nor had the slightest
> thought that you did, even though the tone of the message and the
> level of evidence was little different than many spam messages that
> we have received on the group and have always deleted without posting.
>
>> though I have used it and my son has too (he has high functioning autism
>> and I would put this supplement in the list of the top several giving the
>> most benefit).
>
> It is great to hear that you are being successful in your efforts to
> help him overcome this problem. For such a dysfunction, I too would
> be more willing to try less than fully studied substances.
>
>> I believe it to be a safer alternative to DMSA, though studies
>> demonstrating its safety profile have yet to be published.
>>
>
> And that is the problem. Belief means very little and only to the
> believer, until logical scientific studies have been done (which
> means published in journals).
>
>> The decision to take or not to take a supplement can be a judgment
>> call.
>>
>
> Of course. I am not criticizing your decision to take it and to use
> it for your son. However, the group is ours and ours must be the
> judgment determining what we think is acceptable to appear on it.
>
>> For example, has BPAP has been trialed in humans?
>>
>
> I don't recall and I don't have time to check right now, but at
> least we know just what it is chemically and its mechanism of action
> has been scientifically studied.
>
> Stephen, I am sorry that we have upset you by this decision, because
> you have been a valuable member of the group.

I'm not terribly upset, and I find more value in engaging than not.

> As you continue to
> follow this substance, if you find out just what it is and there is
> some actual published information about it, then you are welcome to
> send another message with the suggestion that you think the would be
> an important addition to the health and life extension enhancement
> diet of anyone, giving your reasons and evidence.

Will do.

Stephen

On 05/12/2009 07:38 PM, Erich Brueschke wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> I wanted to pass along this study as in the past Paul has stated that
> more muscle seems to do nothing to extend life and might be even be
> detrimental. This is the first study I have come across that seems to
> suggest the opposite.
>
> BTW, The BMJ is now available for free and the entire archives back to
> the 1800s is now available for searching.
>
> Erich Brueschke
>
> Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective
> cohorts
> Conclusion: Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated
> with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for
> cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.
>
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/jul01_2/a439
>

Thanks for posting this study, Erich. I read the essential parts of it
(the abstract, introduction, method, discussion and conclusions) and
here are my comments.

First more information about the study and paper:
1) This is a purely prospective study that measured leg and bench
press strength once only at the start in 8762 men aged 20-82, and then
followed the participants to see whether or not they died and if so
whether or not it was cancer or cardiovascular related. A prospective
study cannot prove cause and effect no matter what adjustments for
confounding factors are made.

2) No followup was made of muscular strength in the participants as
they aged. Therefore, the strength profile after a few years could
well have been dramatically different than at the start.

3) It is strange that the abstract does not mention the most important
adjustment of all which is related to the natural difference in
absolute strength, particularly leg press strength, between large and
small men, although they mention adjusting for BMI which should
eliminate the naturally much greater leg strength of overweight men.
(In case I need to spell it out: the larger strength for larger men is
because their legs are required to hold up their weight - those
enormously obese people that one sees necessarily must have a lot of
muscle under that fat, merely in order to move around such an enormous
amount of weight. And this is even true for their fat heavy arms.)
However, in the discussion section it is clear that they did find a
similar correlation after adjusting for weight alone.

<< The observed association between muscular strength and risk of
death from all causes or cancer was also independent of body weight.
We showed an inverse association between muscular strength and risk
of death from all causes and cancer in overweight and obese men, as
well as between muscular strength and risk of all cause mortality in
those of normal body weight. Body mass index may have a different
meaning in those who have greater muscular strength. For example, leg
press strength for a man weighing 60 kg would be expected to be lower
than that for a man weighing 90 kg. That is why we included body mass
index in the multivariate analyses. Thus we not only controlled for
the effect of weight but also height, which might have influenced the
torque or force production. A high body mass index can result from a
greater amount of fat or muscle. Yet in epidemiological studies most
of the people with a higher body mass index also had higher fat
levels.<<

4) The researchers excluded from the study 121 men whose BMI was 18.5
which may have included many who were on calorie restriction either
intentionally or naturally (Kitty's BMI is normally under 18.5 and in
the last year I was there also for a period of time). Such men might
be very healthy, but would likely have lower leg and arm press
strength.

5) They also excluded from the study 635 men who "failed to achieve at
least 85% of aged predicted maximal heart rate during the treadmill
test". This could either mean that these men were so fit that they
completed all 3 stages of the treadmill test without any need for
their heart rate to be that high, or it could mean that these men were
unable to exercise sufficiently without undue stress to reach that
heart rate (likely some of each). Excluding this relatively large
number (7.2% of those kept in the study) of possibly very fit men may
have biased the study toward strength rather than fitness.

6) The discussion section contains the following absolutely astounding
illogic:

<< The apparent protective effect of muscular strength against risk of
death might be due to muscular strength in itself, to muscle fibre
type or configuration, or as a consequence of regular physical
exercise, specifically resistance exercise. Muscle fibre type and
configuration has a genetic component and influences strength, yet it
is clear that resistance type physical activities are major
determinants of muscular strength. We have previously reported a
strong and positive association between the frequency of self reported
resistance exercise and maximal muscular strength in men enrolled in
the aerobics centre longitudinal study—that is, the higher the
participation in resistance exercise the higher the muscular strength.
This observation suggests that the measurements of muscular strength
obtained in the present study provide an adequate representation of
the resistance exercise habits in our cohort.<<

Since the researchers had no information whatsoever on whether or not
*any* of the men in the study were doing resistance exercise, the last
statement is totally unsupportable. Look at it this way. I recruit an
arbitrary set of 8000+ men and measure their leg and arm press
strength; there will naturally be a wide variation in the results.
This variation alone can not possibly be evidence that any of them are
doing resistance exercise, since if I had also stated up front that
men doing resistance exercise are not wanted, then there would have
also been a wide variation in the strength results.

This illogic continues on in the rest of the discussion and into the
conclusions:

<<It might be possible to reduce all cause mortality among men by
promoting regular resistance training involving the major muscle
groups of the upper and lower body two or three days a week.<<

Sure it *might* be (anything possible *might* be the case), but a
prospective study can not provide evidence that it *will* be.

<<The recommendation for moderate to vigorous physical activity and
resistance training are supported by the current research owing to the
reduction in risk of death from all causes and cancer associated with
increased cardiorespiratory fitness or muscular strength.<<

Once again: A prospective study *cannot* prove any form of causality.
For the same reason it can provide no logical "support" for the
contention that intervening to cause some other cohort to have the
same state of strength as the study subjects will then cause them to
have the same reduced mortality rates.

Please carefully examine the logical difference between the following
two statements:
<<Muscular strength seems to add to the protective effect of
cardiorespiratory fitness against the risk of death in men.<<
and
<<Resistance training to increase muscular strength seems to add to
the protective effect of cardiorespiratory fitness against the risk
of death in men.<<

The first is purely correlational (and is what the study data showed).
Those men who had more muscular strength at the start of the study had
reduced all cause, cancer and cardiorespiratory mortality.
The second states that a certain intervention has the same effect on
mortality, but the first provides no evidence for the second, which is
effectively an interventional hypothesis and can only have statistical
evidence provide for it by conducting an interventional study with a
similar cohort of men over a similar time period.

Finally, I want to point out that while strength is generally associated with
muscle size, that is not always so, and it is large muscle bulk rather then
strength that I think is likely negative for longevity.

--Paul

Meta
I have snipped all other portions of this message, except for the thread
to which I reply.
/Meta

Paul Wakfer wrote:
> Meta
> After a social evening of dancing, last night in the shower (where I get
> many of my best ideas), I had a thought about the portion of this
> message which I address below having snipped all the rest.

Thanks for keeping me in mind, Paul. It sometimes takes me a
considerable amount of time to read and fully consider your messages,
but I do get to them :)  I have made good use of your suggestion below,
which I discuss later.

> /Meta

[snip]
>> In the meantime you must learn to do with many less complete
>> relationships that are each of benefit in an important but different
>> area of your life, and perhaps a few longer distance, less immediate
>> relationships that are more complete. Of course, you can also consider
>> relocating to where there exist one or more people with whom you do
>> have a more complete relationship.
>
> You could use the Internet to search your area for groups and activities
> where people more compatible to your character and interests might be
> more easily found than merely during your normal daily activities.
> Here are some suggestions in that direction:
> 1) There are "meetup" groups of all interest types in all major cities.
> Check out http://meetup.com

I have just investigated this website and I found several interesting
groups in Toledo. I hadn't heard of this website until you suggested it.

> 2) Categories of interest that you might look for would be: libertarian,
> liberal, humanist, objectivist, philosophy, activism, life extension,
> cryonics. atheist, free thinker, utilitarian, Bright

I will certainly keep these in mind when I look for more groups.

> There is an interesting one that I found right off, at meetup.com,
> with the title of Positive Thinkers & Doers.

I just registered for meetup.com and for this group, Positive Thinkers &
Doers. This group is having a picnic at the Wildwood Reserve this
Sunday, and I think I am going to attend it, weather permitting. There
are 60 people total in this group, 4 are attending the picnic, and
another 5 have RSVP'd as "maybe". This was a great idea Paul, thanks for
the recommendation.

--Max Peto (previously Steve Floyd Jr).

> Good luck!
>
> --Paul

Meta
Erich and Paul's discussion on Erich's reference to the study below, as
well as the coincidence that I happened across a study that I will refer
to, together, motivated me to send this message. I am working on several
other projects at this time, so I am not prepared to fully comment on
Paul's comments to Erich, so I will not do so at this time. However, I
wanted to bring this to Paul and Erich's (and the group's) attention,
since it is a recent topic of interest at this group. Also, I leave
Paul's comments below because they are related to the topic of this
message: possible salubrious effect of strength/resistance training.
/Meta

Hello everyone,

I ran across a study, referred to at fightaging.org, that discusses the
possibility of resistance training improving mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
More specifically, the paper discusses the possibility that satellite
cells (a type of adult stem cell related to muscle cells) are induced to
repair a muscle cell in the even that the muscle cell is damaged (i.e.
through resistance training). It is postulated that during this repair
process, the proportion of mutant mtDNA to wild-type mtDNA is improved
(made smaller).

[For those who do not know - "wild-type" is a biological term
essentially meaning "normal", in the sense of non-mutated and
non-dysfunctional. --Paul]


This article also states that this positive effect is
expected to be of the most benefit to older individuals whom have
accumulated a large proportion of mutant mtDNA than younger individuals.
Here is the link to the full-text paper:

"Mitochondrial DNA shifting in older adults following resistance
exercise training": http://tinyurl.com/ojsots

After reading this paper, the first question I had was: "is there a
limit to the number of satellite cells?" I would be concerned with this
because I understand some adult stem cells to come from a limited pool.
If satellite cells were to also be naturally limited over one's
lifetime, it would be wise to wait until one is older to engage in a
resistance training regiment designed to reduce mutant mtDNA
populations. To help answer this question I found the following
literature review: "Satellite Cell Self-Renewal". I do not know if this
is publicly-accessible or not, so I uploaded the full-text .pdf file to
this group. Note that this article has the name
"SatelliteCellSelfRenewal2006.pdf".

After considering this article, it seems that satellite cells are *not*
limited, in that they renew their population during the repair process
initiated by resistance exercise. I will be further considering this point.

--Max Peto (was Steve Floyd Jr.)

Paul Wakfer wrote:
> On 05/12/2009 07:38 PM, Erich Brueschke wrote:
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I wanted to pass along this study as in the past Paul has stated that
>> more muscle seems to do nothing to extend life and might be even be
>> detrimental. This is the first study I have come across that seems to
>> suggest the opposite.
>>
>> BTW, The BMJ is now available for free and the entire archives back
>> to the 1800s is now available for searching.
>>
>> Erich Brueschke
>>
>> Association between muscular strength and mortality in men:
>> prospective cohorts
>> Conclusion: Muscular strength is inversely and independently
>> associated with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after
>> adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.
>>
>> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/jul01_2/a439
>
> Thanks for posting this study, Erich. I read the essential parts of it
> (the abstract, introduction, method, discussion and conclusions) and
> here are my comments.
>
> First more information about the study and paper:
> 1) This is a purely prospective study that measured leg and bench
> press strength once only at the start in 8762 men aged 20-82, and then
> followed the participants to see whether or not they died and if so
> whether or not it was cancer or cardiovascular related. A prospective
> study cannot prove cause and effect no matter what adjustments for
> confounding factors are made.
>
> 2) No followup was made of muscular strength in the participants as
> they aged. Therefore, the strength profile after a few years could
> well have been dramatically different than at the start.
>
> 3) It is strange that the abstract does not mention the most important
> adjustment of all which is related to the natural difference in
> absolute strength, particularly leg press strength, between large and
> small men, although they mention adjusting for BMI which should
> eliminate the naturally much greater leg strength of overweight men.
> (In case I need to spell it out: the larger strength for larger men is
> because their legs are required to hold up their weight - those
> enormously obese people that one sees necessarily must have a lot of
> muscle under that fat, merely in order to move around such an enormous
> amount of weight. And this is even true for their fat heavy arms.)
> However, in the discussion section it is clear that they did find a
> similar correlation after adjusting for weight alone.
> << The observed association between muscular strength and risk of
> death from all causes or cancer was also independent of body weight.
> We showed an inverse association between muscular strength and risk of
> death from all causes and cancer in overweight and obese men, as well
> as between muscular strength and risk of all cause mortality in those
> of normal body weight. Body mass index may have a different meaning in
> those who have greater muscular strength. For example, leg press
> strength for a man weighing 60 kg would be expected to be lower
> than that for a man weighing 90 kg. That is why we included body mass
> index in the multivariate analyses. Thus we not only controlled for
> the effect of weight but also height, which might have influenced the
> torque or force production. A high body mass index can result from a
> greater amount of fat or muscle. Yet in epidemiological studies most
> of the people with a higher body mass index also had higher fat levels.<<
>
> 4) The researchers excluded from the study 121 men whose BMI was 18.5
> which may have included many who were on calorie restriction either
> intentionally or naturally (Kitty's BMI is normally under 18.5 and in
> the last year I was there also for a period of time). Such men might
> be very healthy, but would likely have lower leg and arm press strength.
>
> 5) They also excluded from the study 635 men who "failed to achieve at
> least 85% of aged predicted maximal heart rate during the treadmill
> test". This could either mean that these men were so fit that they
> completed all 3 stages of the treadmill test without any need for
> their heart rate to be that high, or it could mean that these men were
> unable to exercise sufficiently without undue stress to reach that
> heart rate (likely some of each). Excluding this relatively large
> number (7.2% of those kept in the study) of possibly very fit men may
> have biased the study toward strength rather than fitness.
>
> 6) The discussion section contains the following absolutely astounding
> illogic:
>
> << The apparent protective effect of muscular strength against risk of
> death might be due to muscular strength in itself, to muscle fibre
> type or configuration, or as a consequence of regular physical
> exercise, specifically resistance exercise. Muscle fibre type and
> configuration has a genetic component and influences strength, yet it
> is clear that resistance type physical activities are major
> determinants of muscular strength. We have previously reported a
> strong and positive association between the frequency of self reported
> resistance exercise and maximal muscular strength in men enrolled in
> the aerobics centre longitudinal study—that is, the higher the
> participation in resistance exercise the higher the muscular strength.
> This observation suggests that the measurements of muscular strength
> obtained in the present study provide an adequate representation of
> the resistance exercise habits in our cohort.<<
>
> Since the researchers had no information whatsoever on whether or not
> *any* of the men in the study were doing resistance exercise, the last
> statement is totally unsupportable. Look at it this way. I recruit an
> arbitrary set of 8000+ men and measure their leg and arm press
> strength; there will naturally be a wide variation in the results.
> This variation alone can not possibly be evidence that any of them are
> doing resistance exercise, since if I had also stated up front that
> men doing resistance exercise are not wanted, then there would have
> also been a wide variation in the strength results.
>
> This illogic continues on in the rest of the discussion and into the
> conclusions:
>
> <<It might be possible to reduce all cause mortality among men by
> promoting regular resistance training involving the major muscle
> groups of the upper and lower body two or three days a week.<<
>
> Sure it *might* be (anything possible *might* be the case), but a
> prospective study can not provide evidence that it *will* be.
>
> <<The recommendation for moderate to vigorous physical activity and
> resistance training are supported by the current research owing to the
> reduction in risk of death from all causes and cancer associated with
> increased cardiorespiratory fitness or muscular strength.<<
>
> Once again: A prospective study *cannot* prove any form of causality.
> For the same reason it can provide no logical "support" for the
> contention that intervening to cause some other cohort to have the
> same state of strength as the study subjects will then cause them to
> have the same reduced mortality rates.
>
> Please carefully examine the logical difference between the following
> two statements:
> <<Muscular strength seems to add to the protective effect of
> cardiorespiratory fitness against the risk of death in men.<<
> and
> <<Resistance training to increase muscular strength seems to add to
> the protective effect of cardiorespiratory fitness against the risk of
> death in men.<<
>
> The first is purely correlational (and is what the study data showed).
> Those men who had more muscular strength at the start of the study had
> reduced all cause, cancer and cardiorespiratory mortality.
> The second states that a certain intervention has the same effect on
> mortality, but the first provides no evidence for the second, which is
> effectively an interventional hypothesis and can only have statistical
> evidence provide for it by conducting an interventional study with a
> similar cohort of men over a similar time period.
>
> Finally, I want to point out that while strength is generally
> associated with muscle size, that is not always so, and it is large
> muscle bulk rather then strength that I think is likely negative for
> longevity.
>
> --Paul

On 05/13/2009 06:46 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Paul & Kitty,
> Some of your new comments I believe I have responded to already.

Roy, while you have written related text and interleaved it with
portions of my text to which it is related, you have not actually
responded to the meaning that my text was meant to convey to you. It
appears at this point that our background of learning is so different
and our brains work so differently that we end up "talking past" one
another and thus cannot have any meaningful discussion. I will therefore
once again try to explain what is wrong with your statements in this
message. However, as I already remarked in my last response, if you can
only continue with this kind of approach, then I will not post your
messages because I have no interest in responding to them.
Later note: During completion of this message (both parts of it), I
found many parts to which you *did* respond to my meaning (or at least
what you thought that it meant). This turned out to have a much more
valuable effect, in as much as it provided me with more opportunities to
explain how my system works. Whether these explanations will be
understood by you, I do not know, but hopefully some readers will
benefit from them.

> I will indicate which ones they are rather than repeating myself. But
> you made some new and interesting points here that I will attempt to
> respond to the best I can. Please keep in mind, I am not engaging in
> this discussion in order to win debating points.

Neither am I. I have never engaged in any discussion with anyone with
that purpose in mind. I only ever seek to find new truths and open the
minds of others to new, more valid ways of thinking.

> I am truly in search of new knowledge and understanding.

Me too. But one first must know what knowledge is and that understanding
can be on several levels. If understanding is not according to the logic
that necessarily underlies all valid thought, then it cannot be real and
worthwhile understanding.

> Likewise, I hope that my
> questions, comments, objections and disagreements will foment new
> ideas for you, or at least serve to sharpen your existing beliefs and
> arguments.

Unfortunately no. You have not expressed one single idea so far that I
have not read before and understood as much as is possible about it.
Perhaps there will be something useful in this message or you will show
that you have some glimmer of what I am trying to communicate. I try to
remain hopeful, but it is not always easy. However, I must take one
exception with your phrasing above. I do not have *any* "beliefs", in
the root sense of that word: "information accepted without evidence for
its validity or even in spite of evidence contrary to its validity".
Rather what I have concerning all statements are various levels of
*conviction* of their validity. BTW, a more appropriate word than
"foment" would have been "stimulate".

>  On 05/12/2009 08:35 PM, Paul Wakfer wrote:
>> On 04/29/2009 04:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@> wrote:
>>>
>>> The core libertarian principle (see above) establishes a basis in
>>> human nature by recognizing the sovereign nature of human
>>> individuals,
>>>
>> What precisely does "sovereign" as a subcategory of "nature" mean?
>> Where do I find it and how do I detect it? How do I differentiate it
>> from other characteristics of human beings which one would call their
>> "nature"? Specifically given any other set of characteristics that are
>> of such nature, how do I determine whether "sovereign" is in that set or
>> not? For example, blond hair is not part of the nature of human beings,
>> but hair is. Smiling and crying seem to be part of the nature of human
>> beings, but after some recent analysis of a remote amazon tribe there is
>> some debate whether or not a sense of number is in the nature of all
>> humans.
>>
> I assumed this was self-evident. Apparently not. I couldn't find your
> definition of Self-Sovereign, but I think I can use your definition of
> SELF-MASTERY ie:
>
> Self-Mastery describes the fact of Reality that every Existent has
> more direct Attributes of Possession and Control over itself, and more
> direct access to Information Represented within itself, than does any
> other Existent and that this "more" includes Attributes of Existents,
> Information and Processes the Possession, Control or access of which
> is physically impossible for any other Existent. In this regard a
> Freeman can be thought of as a Self-Master.

The above definition (of Self-Mastery) relates to one individual.
Robinson Crusoe totally alone on his island is a self-master. The
definition does not state or even suggest any guide to what human
actions should be taken or not taken, most certainly not with respect to
other humans. I have not defined the term "self-sovereign" because I
have not needed or used it in either the SMN or NSC. It was a term used
before either of them were written and meant to convey the standard
vernacular hazy and ill-defined meaning of the term. But you have made
it clear that I do need to either define that term or abandon it as part
of the description of the whole project. My definition would actually be
quite easy, since a self-sovereign individual would be a Freeman as
defined in the NSC - one who has executed and is in agreement with the
NSC. The word "self-sovereign" itself would then specify a human who has
the Privileges and Responsibilities specified in the NSC. Note that in
doing this I am not defining "sovereign" by itself.

In any case, you have not addressed how "sovereign" is related to the
nature of man, which was my main question.

> On the topic of "Nature of Humans": I think I can comfortably define
> this term (in the context of libertarian principles) to mean --
> adhering to, or being consistent with "Social Meta-Needs" as I
> currently understand your theory:
>
> Social Meta-Needs - those properties of the Environment of
> InterActions within Society common to all Members, which facilitate
> the highest possible attainment of Lifetime Happiness by each.

No. The "nature of humans" is simply any characteristic or attribute
that is common to all non-dysfunctional humans (which, clearly, being
"self-sovereign" is not).
I sure wish this included "being consistent with Social Meta-Needs",
because then my work would be complete and everyone would already be a
Freeman. But sadly, no one even knows about Social Meta-Needs much less
acts consistently with it.

>>> and guides social interactions by defining "forcible interference"
>>> as the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.
>>>
>> 1) Precisely which actions are "forcible" and which are not? I don't
>> want a list (which would be endless). I want clearly defining
>> characteristics.
>> 2) Same question for "interference"? Would not, even mutually voluntary
>> sexual relations be an example of "forcible interference"? Are
>> libertarians against sex? :-)
>> 3) Acceptable or unacceptable by whom? And what is the action to be
>> taken by whom if some action (by someone else?) is found to be
>> acceptable or found to be unacceptable?
>>
> Funny! I am at least one libertarian who believes consensual sex is
> NOT "Forcible Interfernce." I suspect I could find a couple of others
> who agree with me on this.

Again you have missed my point, which is not whether you or others think
that "mutually voluntary sexual relations" are an example of "forcible
interference" or not, but rather that by the standard meaning of
forcible interference, all sex would in fact be an example of the types
of actions defined by it. So it is clear that "forcible interference" is
not a sufficient description of what actions are right and what are
wrong. *That* was my point. Did you not see that?
You also did not address items 1) or 3) above.

> But here again, I think I can comfortably replace the term "Forcible
> Interference" with word DURESS as you define it in the NSC, ie:
>
> Duress is the State of one Freeman-A (the Duressee) with respect to
> another Freeman-B (the Duressor) when:
>
>    1. Freeman-A perceives and Performs Defense against a Defendable
> Threat to him by Freeman-B, or Freeman-B's Agent, and Freeman-B is not
> currently a Duressee with respect to Freeman-A;
>    2. Freeman-A formally Charges that Freeman-B or Freeman-B's agent
> has Violated Freeman-A; or
>    3. Freeman-A has received a Restitution Agreement or Restitution
> Requirement from Freeman-B which is not yet Complete.

No. Duress is a State (see the definition of State in the NSC or even in
a regular dictionary, for that matter). Whereas, based on any reasonable
meanings of the words, "forcible interference" must be an Action (see
definitions of Action as before). States and Actions are entirely
different things.

For completeness, the technical term in the NSC is not "DURESS" but
rather "Duress", the definition of which is at
file:///root/Computer/SelfSIP/solutions/NSC.html#duress

> The only stipulations I will make are these: 1. I include non-physical
> forms of DURESS.

Duress is a State, which is in Level-2 Meta-Reality. Duress can
therefore be neither physical nor non-physical, since the Attribute
"physical" only applies to Existents (matter, energy and combinations of
these - called Material Existents, and space, time, Events and Actions).
Therefore, I will replace the word DURESS in your statement above with
"forcible interference" (the phrase you used before). But then my
question is: why would you include any non-physical action within
forcible interference? And specifically which non-physical actions and
under what conditions? To help you with this, I will ask the rhetorical
question: How can a rational person be harmed by an action which does
not act directly on him, his property or any other Material Object that
he values?
However it is important to note that I did not define "physical force"
(on purpose, because it is not a sufficiently sharp concept for
separating those Actions that are Violations from those Actions that are
not), rather I needed definitions of Effective Cause, Connection, Harm,
Modified Event, Permission and Entitlement in order to define
Responsible Harm, which is what is then the type of State that must be
Restituted in accord with the NSC.

> And, 2. I do not accept subjective assessments of
> happiness as part of what you call RESPONSIBLE HARM which results from
> acts of duress.

Did you not read and understand the parts of the SMN where I described
that fundamental uniqueness and separation of each human from each other
human, including the fundamental impossibility of any one or group of
humans to determine any value for another? The principle resulting from
this fact of human reality is called the principle of methodological
individualism and it is fully accepted by all classical liberals, all
libertarian philosophers, all Austrian School economists and all
Objectivists. Their only failing is that they do not apply it as
rigorously and consistently as I do. The fact that a Victim is the only
person who can determine the extent of hir Harm and the Restitution that
is Required is a direct consequence of that principle. If you dispute
that consequence, then you must logically dispute the principle itself
and thus, some part of its derivation. Therefore, please state where in
the SMN treatise concerning this area, you think that I have erred.

> Oh ya, and 3. I might want to change the term
> "Freeman" with "Self-Sovereign Individual" just to make it more
> universal.

That would not make it any more universal, since it would still only
refer to those who have Executed the NSC. However, I am open to a
different word for such people. I first called them "adults", but that
was too messy and would lead to confusion with some fully grown and
physically mature people who had not Executed the NSC. Therefore I
needed a more neutral term without any other confusing meanings. I also
wanted a one word term for those people who had Executed the NSC. Also
the word "individual" is far too general (as I implied before), since it
can refer to individual things of many kinds, not necessarily even
living things. If "Self-Sovereign" was to be used, then "Self-Sovereign
Person" would be far better.

Roy, except for the last ("to make it more universal"), while you have
expressed disagreement above (but not specified exactly which part of my
text), you have not stated any reasons for the disagreement, but rather
merely your own opinion about what you would do. This is of no value to
me. If I am to convince you, then I need to know precisely *which* of my
text you think is wrong and *why* you think it so.

>>>> My practical suggestions -
>>>> the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
>>>> at all.
>>> Your 6 items may not have come from libertarian concepts, but they
>>> sound very libertarian to me. They are a solid set of guidelines on
>>> how a truly sovereign (may I say libertarian) individual should
>>> avoid governmental interference and reject governmental assistance.
>>>
>> [For reference I am restating the 6 items from the article:
>> 1. Do not make use of "government services" that can be obtained
>> privately;
>> 2. Initiate/support cooperative efforts that replace "government
>> services";
>> 3. Do not work for or do business with governments of any form in any
>> capacity;
>> 4. Preferentially associate with those who do *not* work for
>> governments - positive social preferencing;
>> 5. Do *not* voluntarily associate with those who continue to work for
>> government despite being encouraged not to do so - negative social
>> preferencing;
>>
>> Last but not least and actually primary to the preceding,
>> 6. Practice self-responsibility and encourage the same by all others,
>> especially children and young people. **Kitty]
> Numbers 1 thru 5 are consistent with general libertarian
> anti-government dependence principles,

They may be consistent, but you will not find them in many (if any)
libertarian writings.

> but a libertarian may or may
> not engage in these tactics and remain true to his libertarian values.

Exactly! Libertarians are not doing these things and they are not part
of libertarian principles. Whereas they are implied by SMN theory and
any Freeman would practice them all or s/he would not be true to hir
principles. In other words, I and Kitty do not view them as mere tactics
that can be done or not without repercussions on one's lifetime
happiness, but rather absolutely necessary actions to take in order to
optimally increase our lifetime happinesses.

> However, #6 is pretty much a requirement, if you want to call yourself
> a libertarian.

Ha! Obviously you have not interacted with many libertarians. In my
experience there are about the same percentage of irresponsible
libertarian (and objectivists too) as in many other segments of society.
In fact, my experience is that humanists are probably more responsible
as individuals - they just do not understand that all government actions
are harmful.

>> [These 6 likely have a libertarian "ring" to them because, as Paul stated
>> previously, the theory of social meta-needs can be viewed as a synthesis
>> of which classical liberalism (the forerunner of libertarianism) is a
>> part. But the differences with libertarianism are significant as Paul
>> has and will continue to point out.
>>
>> While a person who actually follows those 6 items will be rejecting
>> much of government - especially the enforcers by way of voluntary
>> disassociation - unless s/he understands and accepts the reasons
>> underlying them (for why government is not only undesirable but
>> actually unnecessary and why all forms of non-coercive rational social
>> preferencing are both valid and beneficial actions), s/he will likely
>> be hampered in attempts to persuade others, except merely by example
>> of actions and results. Only when such a person understands and
>> accepts the underlying principles - which may come about after simply
>> practicing those items for some time, as would a insightful novice at
>> any complex endeavor (an example of the inductive method by which most
>> knowledge is gained) - will sh/e really be self-sovereign in thought
>> even while government lingers on. **Kitty]
>>
> Lofty and laudable goal. But attainable?... maybe. I'd like to believe
> so, but my rational side still has some feasibility issues to resolve.

Roy, the above is merely an expression of your *opinion* on Kitty's
above text as a whole. It is not any kind of analysis of the many
separate points that she stated - you have not even expressed your
opinion on each of those separate points. Therefore it is not clear
whether you have made any analysis of the separate points or even
understood all of them, for that matter. Usually such lumping together
of very separate ideas of the immediately preceding message means that
the responder has missed much of it and that hir comment mainly relates
to the last idea expressed by that previous writer. Even worse, you
state that you have "some feasibility issues to resolve", but you do not
state what the issues are, exactly what problems you have with them and
how you are thinking of resolving them (such as by asking specific
questions to me or Kitty about how they would be feasible (meaning
practical, I assume).
To show you what is needed, relative to your expressed opinion, I will
dissect her text above and suggest what you might have thought and,
perhaps even, said about each part.

<<These 6 likely have a libertarian "ring" to them because, as Paul
stated previously, the theory of social meta-needs can be viewed as a
synthesis of which classical liberalism (the forerunner of
libertarianism) is a part. But the differences with libertarianism are
significant as Paul has and will continue to point out.<<

Your response above almost certainly did not relate to this text. You
might, for example, have asked a question about the meaning of the
phrase "classical liberalism" and about its relationship to
libertarianism, particularly when you previously stated that you thought
libertarianism came from Ayn Rand's Objectivism. You might also have
stated that you have not yet seen any "significant" differences between
SMN theory and libertarianism, but again you did not do that.

<<While a person who actually follows those 6 items will be rejecting
much of government - especially the enforcers by way of voluntary
disassociation - unless s/he understands and accepts the reasons
underlying them (for why government is not only undesirable but actually
unnecessary and why all forms of non-coercive rational social
preferencing are both valid and beneficial actions), s/he will likely be
hampered in attempts to persuade others, except merely by example of
actions and results.<<

This is a long sentence (I had a hand in constructing it :-) that
contains several parts. It is also most likely that your response did
not apply to it. Here are some questions that you might have considered
during an analysis of the parts of it, which might have prompted some
response from you:

<<While a person who actually follows those 6 items will be rejecting
much of government - especially the enforcers by way of voluntary
disassociation<<
Thoughts you might have about the above:
1) How much of government will be rejected by following Kitty's 6 items?
All of it?
2) If not, what parts of government will not be rejected by such actions?
3) If yes, then why will these 6 items alone have such a major effect?
4) Will merely targeting the "enforcers" cause the rejection of all of
government? Why so? And if not, why not?

<<unless s/he understands and accepts the reasons underlying them (for
why government is not only undesirable but actually unnecessary and why
all forms of non-coercive rational social preferencing are both valid
and beneficial actions),<<
Thoughts you might have about the above:
1) How is "understanding" related to "acceptance"? Why is not one or the
other sufficient?
2) Why is understanding the "reasons underlying them (the 6 items)"
necessary, rather than simply practicing them?
3) How does government being "undesirable" relate to its being
"unnecessary"? Under what circumstances can something that is
undesirable still be necessary?
4) Why is Kitty using the word "coercive" here, when Paul has rejected
it elsewhere as being ambiguous and improper to use - it is not used in
the SMN and NSC? Is the word "non-coercive" even necessary in the above
text, because can rational social preferencing ever be coercive?
5) What does it mean to say that "rational social preferencing" is
"valid"? Are there any forms of it that are not "beneficial actions"? If
so what are some? How can we say that they are all beneficial without
checking every last possible one of them?

<<s/he will likely be hampered in attempts to persuade others, except
merely by example of actions and results.<<
Thoughts you might have about the above:
1) Why will lack of understanding, rather than mere acceptance hamper a
persons ability to persuade others?
2) How will examples of actions and results persuade others? Which kinds
of others will need understanding and/or be satisfied with that alone,
which will need practical examples and proven beneficial effects and
which kinds of people will need both.? What are the proportions of such
types in the general population, IMO? Where might I find more of one
type than another?

<<Only when such a person understands and accepts the underlying
principles - which may come about after simply practicing those items
for some time, as would a insightful novice at any complex endeavor (an
example of the inductive method by which most knowledge is gained) -
will sh/e really be self-sovereign in thought even while government
lingers on.<<
This is the statement that I assume your comment was directed to, but
you might have had the following thoughts about it:
1) Can true understanding come about from "simply practicing"? I assume
that you also meant to include here seeing the benefits of such practicing.
2) What exactly is the meaning of "inductive method"? Why and in what
way is it the method "by which most knowledge is gained"?
3) Can full understanding come from an "inductive method"? If not what
does full understanding entail?
4) Can "acceptance" come from from an "inductive method" of
understanding? from merely practicing the items and seeing that they
give beneficial results?
5) What does "self-sovereign in thought" mean and how is it beneficial
compared with self-sovereign in all choices and actions? Is it
beneficial at all? Why so or why not?
6) What does "government lingers on" mean and how does it relate to
being "self-sovereign in thought"?

If you could not answer such questions to your own satisfaction then you
could/should have asked them in your response. If you were satisfied
that you had an answer to any of them, then you could have commented to
that effect and given your reasons. Doing this would have demonstrated
that you know how to and actually did do critical reading, and it would
also have been highly valued by me, because it would a) provide new
thoughts to me and Kitty, b) would show us that we were getting through
to your understanding and/or c) would amplify the ideas, thereby helping
other readers to better understand them.

>> Paul again:
>> In my experience with libertarians (not much in recent years), I have
>> not seen any promote or practice either 3, 4 or 5 above and 6 is not
>> particularly libertarian being also promoted by some other social
>> groups that are far from libertarian - eg humanists.
>>
> Truth is truth.

Once again Roy, that statement is a tautology (which has no information
content). (Look up the meaning of tautology.) So in effect you have made
no comment at all and once again I have no way to know either that you
have analyzed what I wrote or your thoughts about it.

Relative to the above, Kitty just provided me a question one might ask:
"Why is item 6 not a truth?" (suggesting *that* is effectively what
Roy is trying - improperly - to say). My answer is that item 6 is a
suggested action and method of operation. A truth or valid statement
is just that. A statement is the only thing that can be true or false.
If item 6 had been phrased as: "Practicing self-responsibility and
encouraging the same by all others, especially children and young
people, will promote your ability to optimally increase your lifetime
happiness", then that would have been a truth directly implied by the
SMN theory.

>>>> The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
>>>> directly opposed to any practical application of social
>>>> preferencing.
>>>>
>>> Social preferencing plays a very important role in libertarian
>>> thinking.
>>>
>> Kitty did not imply that social preferencing (not by that term, but
>> rather called "the right of association") is not a major part of
>> libertarian principle and action. What she stated, and you have not
>> addressed, is that "the idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians",
>> which includes anonymity, multiple unlinked pseudonyms and even, for
>> many, a positive right to personal privacy, is inconsistent with any
>> effective social preferencing between individuals in society. This is
>> because, to be effective, social preferencing requires the ability to
>> find out and monitor all possible information about the person who you
>> are evaluating for the purpose of association (friendship or value
>> exchange of some kind) and more generally, whose actions you are
>> evaluating with respect to whether or not they operate towards an
>> optimal increase in your lifetime happiness or not. Such effective
>> monitoring/evaluation of another individual cannot take place if s/he
>> is a "ghost" about whom only a little information is available or has
>> the information by which s/he could be reasonably evaluated
>> distributed between several unlinked pseudonyms.
>>
> I respectfully disagree. Your MoreLife group policies demonstrate how
> social preferencing works without forcing any individual to give up
> their personal privacy.
> You simply choose NOT to associate with
> individuals who do not supply sufficient personal information. It's
> not about the personal information per se, but about the use of DURESS
> to get it.

I have to shake my head in exasperation here since you clearly did not
understand the essence of SMN theory, which you read. Either that or you
simply do not understand how some truths can imply others.
The MoreLife group policies in fact, are first our privilege as group
owners, and second an attempt on our part to have a social preferencing
effect on others. However, the sad fact of the matter is that they are
*not* working! The number of people who have come out of the closet of
anonymity or unlinked pseudonymity is pitifully small compared with the
number of members in the group. Only about 20% are fully identified and
eligible to post messages, and most of them are fully identified because
of their association with a group of buyers of potentially life
extending chemicals, where they must be fully identified to be able to
purchase from the suppliers of those chemicals.
Yes, we choose to not associate with those who will not full identify
themselves (at least not for any correspondence more than a few email
exchanges), even though we do accept them as members of the group.
However, this is not working much to our overall benefit (mainly only in
finding those who are willing to be open and with whom we have more
possibility of having a fruitful relationship) in any great sense,
precisely because very few others are doing likewise. Apart from the
described benefit, it is harming us by eliminating many people who might
otherwise contribute valuable information to us. It is a type of harm
that an employer causes hirself by being unwilling to hire someone from
a particular segment of the population around hir. By choosing from a
smaller population s/he is unlikely to get the employee with the best
qualifications for the job.

The problem is that while everyone agrees that it would be better for
them to have more information about all *other* people (just as it is
better to have more information about any product or service that one is
considering purchasing), we have so far gotten almost nowhere in
persuading anyone that practicing anonymity or pseudonymity is bad for
*hirself*. I think that part of the reason for this is the problem with
not being able to see the benefits of what does not currently exist.
These people already have a fair number of people with whom they
interact and with whom they are open about there identity. They do not
see the benefit of having the whole world, particularly on the Internet
to interact with openly. Worse still, as long as most people on the
Internet continue to accept such anonymity and unlinked pseudonymity,
there is, in fact, very little clear loss of benefit by each such
person. The loss is far more indirect and therefore even *more*
difficult to convince anyone about.

The SMN and NSC do not advocate any use of force to stop people from
being anonymous or using unlinked pseudonyms nor do they place anyone
who practices anonymity or uses unlinked pseudonyms in a state of
Duress. The NSC simply excludes from its society anyone who practices
those (just as we exclude such people from posting to our group). But
the NSC also does not stipulate that those who execute it must also not
associate with people such people. That would be impossible at the start
of things. I and Kitty must necessarily associate with such people to
live and have a reasonable life in the current society.

I also want to point out that I am *not* talking here about anonymity or
unlinked pseudonymity with respect to anyone who would use any form of
coercion against you (governments, thieves, rapists, muggers, etc)  Such
people are totally outside the bounds of ethical action and any means to
avoid the harms that they wreak is both ethical and even *required
action* of any rational human, if you understand the implications of SMN.

>>> It is the essence of how individuals are able to exercise free
>>> choice without using force against others.
>>>
>> At this point, because all these libertarian terms are ill-defined and
>> ambiguous, I have no choice but to resort to the use of the clearly
>> defined fundamental terms of the SMN theory (capitalized words below),
>> which are defined within the  formal part of its implementation by the
>> Natural Social Contract (NSC) - which is the effective replacement,
>> within the future possible self-ordered society of full liberty that I
>> am founding and describing, for the entire legal system within any
>> current society (which is why the NSC is *not* a simple read). Please
>> consult http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html for all definitions
>> (BTW, you will not find a definition of "force" in that document,
>> because in social terms it is a derivative word, fraught with
>> problems).
>>
> See above response.

I have no idea to what you are referring here.

>> 1) Social Preferencing is not the "essence" of anything. It is a
>> practical method by which one individual communicates hir Evaluation
>> of another individual to that other individual and, ideally, to all
>> other individuals with whom that other one is Connected.
>>
> Sounds pretty "essential" to me.

Essence (noun) :
1 : a basic underlying or constituting entity, substance, or form:
b (1) : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental and variable
and hence phenomenal phases or foundation of being : metaphysical
substance especially when a substratum that is distinguished from and
that supports attributes
(2) : something that constitutes the individual, real, or ultimate
nature or kind often as opposed to the existence of a being or thing
<a picture of a tree should represent the /essence/ of the tree -- its
ultimate or basic reality, that which makes it what it is, the
thing-in-itself or in its intrinsic nature -- Hunter Mead>
<succeeds in conveying completely the cruel /essence/ of loneliness --
Arthur Knight>
<came to the conclusion that the /essence/ of heat was motion --
S.F.Mason>
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 May 2009).

"Social Preferencing" is a noun, but it is a noun describing an action,
set of actions or method. It is not something that has any of the
characteristics of an "essence" as defined above. Now unfortunately,
"essential" is one of those many, many words that has "strayed" from it
original meaning (the one solely related to the word from which
derives). This is precisely my point of why the vernacular English
language is impossibly ambiguous and totally unable to support any clear
and unambiguous rules for the self-ordering of a society. Even the
contract methods of current society recognize this and begin most
contracts (and legislation, btw) with clear definitions of many terms
used within the contract (or legislative document).
Here is the MW definition of "essential":
1 : of or relating to an essence
2 a : NECESSARY, INDISPENSABLE
<transporting the heavy ore by rail was difficult and expensive; a
water route was /essential/ -- Allan Nevins & H.S.Commager>
<international scientific meetings are /essential/ to scientific progress for
the reason that no one nation has a monopoly of either ideas or brains --
/Saturday Review/>
<agreed to request uniform standards for deferment of
/essential/ physicians -- /Current Biography/>
<Lutherans from the sixteenth century have regarded choir singing as /essential/
to their ritual -- /American Guide Series: Minnesota/>
b : UNAVOIDABLE
<a good many /essential/ tasks are left until the last minute --
Stewart Cockburn>
<physicians and lawyers may count their purchases of books as
/essential/ expenses of their profession in computing income tax --
/Report: (Canadian) Royal Commission on National Development/>
c : important in the highest degree *:* demanding maximum attention :
unavoidably significant <a great reserve of manpower /essential/ to the
defense of the homeland>
d : minimal but fundamental to the achievement of an end
<make yourself a small pocket map showing the /essential/ landmarks around camp
so that you can find your way back -- /Boy Scout Handbook/>

One or more of 2a is the way that you are using "essential" above and
this is likely the way most people use the word. As you can see, this
meaning is *highly unrelated* to the meaning of the word "essence" given
above. Thanks for providing me with a great example of how the
ambiguities of English make communication extremely difficult and cause
so much misunderstanding and even fighting between people who do not
understand that there is such a problem and end up blaming things on the
other person.
You are quite correct in your usage (according to 2a). Social
Preferencing is an essential method by which a self-ordered society of
full liberty will be achieved. However your statement in no manner
refutes mine preceding it, which was to describe why your previous one
was incorrect.

>> 2) Choice and force are totally unrelated things. Choice is something
>> that takes place in the brain/mind. It is the Action taken as a result
>> of the Choice which may or may not use force in some manner.
>>
> Okay...

It is extremely important to keep such differences straight and not
smear all these concepts together if one is to have a clear set of rules
and guidelines for an self-ordered society of full liberty.

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

You haven't yet given anything that constitutes a "clear definition", if
that is what your response above means.

> ("Action" and "Choice" are pretty clear.)

They are only "pretty clear" to you because you have not analyzed them
sufficiently to see the ways in which they are not clear. I don't wish
to take the time to give examples illustrating the unclarity of these
words as defined in English right now, because none of my previous
examples of such things got through to you relative to the purpose of
giving the examples. Everything is "pretty clear" until you understand
how and why it is not "pretty clear". The most difficult person to deal
with is one who doesn't even know what s/he doesn't know. Having a
suspicion or glimmer that there is something that one doesn't know is
absolutely necessary for beginning any quest for knowledge.

>> Furthermore as I showed in the first part, not all initiation of
>> force, even pure physical force, by one human being on another is bad
>> and should be forbidden as it is by the most fundamental principle
>> that libertarians hold (which most maintain is the essential defining
>> principle of being a libertarian) - The Non-Aggression Principle
>> (NAP), which states: "a human individual may do anything that s/he
>> wants provided only that s/he does not initiate or threaten violence
>> against the person or properly owned property of another". Once again
>> the problems here arise from the fact that the meanings of 'Initiate",
>> "threaten", "violence" and "properly owned property" are all highly
>> ambiguous in the English language and which exact meaning is to be
>> used here is not specified.
>>
> One could attempt to define these words more clearly.

Which is precisely what I have done, but then one cannot still write the
words precisely as they were. Or else how would one know whether the
more precise and unambiguous definition is to be used or the standard
multiple choice of definitions from any dictionary?

> Or, one could
> simply invent new words. I can understand why you chose the later
> approach. But from a practical point of view, I think it's
> problematic.

I fully understand the potential problems with inventing new terms, but
I am also very familiar with how it is best done, because of my
extensive background in mathematics, physics, computer science and more
recently all areas related to human biology. In specialized subject
areas, new technical terms are necessary to describe newly discovered
concepts. Rather than inventing entirely new words, these are usually
chosen from some word in the vernacular language of the discoverer or
formulator of the new concept. This practice does cause great confusion
when a media person attempts to explain a particular area of science to
the general public; and unfortunately scientists are guilty of also
using such technical meanings when speaking to the public (or even to
scientists in other areas) *without* explaining that their usage is a
very clear and particular technical meaning that may be very different
from the vernacular meaning in the language being spoken.
I did not "invent new words". Rather as with any science specialty area,
I chose to use vernacular words and give them very clear meanings that
were close to one of the vernacular meanings or the technical meaning in
some other subject area. However, in order to *not* confuse people, I
decided to capitalize my technical terms, precisely to make it clear
that they were technical terms and not the vernacular meaning. That way
I was also able to continue usage of some vernacular meanings are well.
The capitalization is not a perfect solution because if one of my
technical terms begins a sentence then it will not be clear whether or
not it is a technical term - in this case the context is generally used
to decide. However, in writing this I just thought of a solution to that
small ambiguity, which is to capitalize the second letter as well if a
technical term is at the beginning of a sentence. I will do that from
now on and change all text on the website accordingly.

But again Roy, you did not address the entirety of my text above. You
said nothing about my long first sentence, which was the major part of
my text above:
<<Furthermore as I showed in the first part, not all initiation of
force, even pure physical force, by one human being on another is bad
and should be forbidden as it is by the most fundamental principle that
libertarians hold (which most maintain is the essential defining
principle of being a libertarian) - The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP),
which states: "a human individual may do anything that s/he wants
provided only that s/he does not initiate or threaten violence against
the person or properly owned property of another".<<

I haven't the time to suggest all the questions that might have gone
through your mind and some been asked, if you were really analyzing the
above.

>> In addition, as my previous examples
>> showed (and uncountably many other examples are possible) even with
>> totally reasonable meanings for those terms, there are many Actions
>> contrary to the NAP that any libertarian would agree are correct ones.
>>
> Except for definitionally contrived conflicts, I have not seen an
> action that I would condone that is contrary to the principle of NAP.
> Just because someone could conceivable come up with a conflict that is
> based on an obscure and generally unaccepted definition, does not make
> the principle any less valid.

I am afraid the above shows me how totally hopeless it is to try to
explain anything to you. However for other readers, I will patiently
explain in detail what you have not been able to see from my examples.
1) Rescuing someone from their burning home requires precisely the same
actions as breaking and entering a private home and kidnapping. There is
no "definitionally contrived conflict" here. Nor is this example "based
on an obscure and generally unaccepted definition". The actions needed
to rescue the person are clearly forbidden by the NAP or by the previous
libertarian principle that you quoted (surely the "sole dominion over
oneself" would mean that the person in the burning building should not
have been touched by any other person. If you cannot see this, then
perhaps you just do not want to see it. BTW, perhaps a better example
(there are countless numbers of them) would have been the situation
where someone, looking the other way, is about to step out in front of
an oncoming truck. Another person sees this, grabs the first person and
knocks hir down back onto the sidewalk, breaking hir arm in the process.
In this case, the action was still unpermitted ahead of time, because
there was not time to ask, even though the person on whom the force was
used was fully conscious. In fact, for this particular situation I have
a fully worked out scenario of all the possibilities and how they are
handled under the SMN and NSC at:
http://SelfSIP.org/solutions/interaction_examples/intent_benefit/index.html

2) Stopping the car from rolling out on the street requires the exact
same possible actions as taking control of someone's property without
hir permission, possibly damaging someone property and/or car theft.
There is no "definitionaly contrived conflict" here. Nor is this example
"based on an obscure and generally unaccepted definition". The actions
needed are clearly forbidden by the NAP or by any other libertarian
principles that I have ever seen in writing. There are so many examples
of this kind that libertarians have never tried to describe the common
quality that they have that would make them acceptable. In fact, when
one attempts to get to the essence of what makes such actions acceptable
versus what makes such other actions not acceptable, which is precisely
what I did, then I maintain one will necessarily discover the SMN
theory. I tried very, very hard believe me. I found no other solution
less radical than that provided by the SMN theory and all its implications.

3) The example of the lost starving person coming upon a cache of food
and water clearly owned by someone else is the most "contrived" example
(but still not "definitionally contrived" - whatever that really means).
However, it is nevertheless a very real and possible example of a "life
boat" situation. Once again (do/ /I really need to spell it out?) the
actions used are precisely the same as breaking and entering private
property, stealing goods within it and even making those goods
irretrievable by consuming them. There is no "definitionaly contrived
conflict" here. Nor is this example "based on an obscure and generally
unaccepted definition". The actions needed to save one's life are
clearly forbidden by the NAP or any other libertarian principle that I
have ever read or heard. Clearly, such principles do not get at the
essence of what is needed for true *unambiguous* guidance. I maintain
that the SMN theory and the NSC *do* get at such an essence and provide
clear guidance for the correct actions for every situation of human
interaction.

> If this were true, virtually every
> principle ever conceived could be called invalid simply because
> someone questions what the meaning of "is" is.

This is just plain silly. I am not saying that every word in English is
ambiguous. And questioning the meaning of the words in the NAP is
actually not part of the examples that I gave, which would be forbidden
by it as it is written even with its ambiguous meanings, and yet every
person would accept them as correct actions.
OTOH, there is an entire deep branch of philosophy (called ontology or
first philosophy) which seeks to delineate understand just what is meant
by the word "is" or "being".

>> Therefore, the "principle" is not a complete and sufficient basis to
>> decided whether any human Action will or will not optimally increase
>> the Lifetime Happiness of the Actor, and because of that, the NAP is
>> not correctly described as a principle at all.

Note: because libertarianism is concerned only with human
*inter*actions, ie social actions, the above should have read: "...
whether any human Social Action will or will not ..."

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

No. First, the term "Violation" is an Action, not a principle (a
principle always takes the grammatical/logical form of a "statement" -
see the dictionary). The corresponding principle would be the NSC
General Stipulation 2. "I Do now and Will continue to Intend that no
Freeman be Violated". However, the the NAP is *not* consistent with
that Stipulation because of the actions in the examples I have given
(and many others like them) that would be contrary to the NAP, but are
not Violations as defined in the NSC. Furthermore (and actually even
worse), there are many actions that are Violations (although not
intended) and will Require Restitution, but which are either not
contrary to the NAP or not contrary to the types of subjective
interpretations of it which you are constantly trying to make (and
which, I grant, most libertarians also make). Unless you and they can
give some clear reasons why you make these particular subjective
interpretations of the NAP (and similar libertarian/Objectivist
principles), then how can you say that others making their own
subjective interpretations, which you do not agree with, are wrong?

Once again, what I set out to accomplish about 8 years ago now (shortly
after joining with Kitty) was to find a more fundamental basis behind
what most libertarians and Objectivists think is correct social human
behavior, just so that there would be *clear guidance* for correct
social actions from this more fundamental basis and no need for
individual subjective acceptance of so many exceptions to the
libertarian principles of correct action. The SMN theory, the NSC and
Social Preferencing are that more fundamental basis and the practical
implementations of it.

>> [The NAP formulation that Paul used above is a slightly modified one
>> of Walter Block's in his article, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of
>> Libertarianism" - http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
>> An even worse version is that of L. Neil Smith: "No one has the right,
>> under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
>> being, nor to delegate its initiation." The article at Wikipedia
>> includes both these versions and includes the following sentence
>> following Smith's: "This is considered an imprecise formulation, since
>> it explicitly ignores context." In actuality all of the versions,
>> including Ayn Rand's that is mentioned first are "imprecise" and
>> "ignore context".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Formulations **Kitty]
>>
> I'm not sure what you mean here by "context."

Roy, I could explain the meaning of "context" to you and also explain
what I think that the wikipedia writer meant by hir statement, but that
would not be nearly as valuable for you as would be your consulting
several dictionaries to determine for yourself all the meanings of
"context". And as for:

> See, now you've got me doing it.

Your statement of not understanding the word "context" bears no
relationship at all to what I have been doing. The difference is that I
*do know* the intended meaning of the texts that you have been quoting
or paraphrasing. I was simply showing that the words themselves were not
adequate to clearly define and describe that intended meaning (which is
because the basis for the words was not fundamental enough to clearly
distinguish correct actions from incorrect actions in every case of
social interaction).

Perhaps you have never heard of the Socratic Method of teaching by
guiding a person to understanding through asking important questions for
hir to consider. (If you have not then you really ought to look it up.)
Rather then give you all the answers (which are in any case all detailed
in the SMN, NSC and its annotations), I was attempting to help you to
discover by yourself and understand for yourself that libertarian and
objectivist so-called principles are essentially impractical because
they do not give clear guidance on many social decisions. However, this
method has not worked with you and I have now become convinced that no
method that I use would. Only time and the examples of the system
working will help you to understand and realize that my system will work
to better the lives of all those who adopt it (at least once there are
enough doing so).

>>>> Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
>>>> which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
>>>> consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
>>>> self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
>>>> ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
>>>> and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
>>>> interacts).
>>>>
>>> As a libertarian, I defend anonymity as a choice.
>>>
>> Roy, you (and many others) are confusing the two completely different
>> aspects of a human Action:
>> 1) whether or not a given human Action should be *Permitted* by all
>> other humans, with "Permitted" meaning that the Action is neither
>> prevented, circumvented, punished, has required Restitution or in any
>> manner is opposed by an Action of Responsible Harm to the Actor, and
>> 2) whether or not a human Action should be evaluated by each human
>> with respect to its effects on hir ability to optimally increase hir
>> Lifetime Happiness (for all humans at the same time), and to act in
>> ways that do *not* involve any Action of Responsible Harm to the
>> Actor, but are intended to effect a change in the Actor such that in
>> future hir related Actions *do* promote the ability of each human to
>> optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same time.
>>
>> Note the essential difference between those two human reactions to
>> another human action described immediately above. The first involves
>> an Act of Responsible Harm (initiation of physical force is one simple
>> example of an Action that generally causes Responsible Harm), but the
>> second does not.
>>
>> Attempting to Act in an anonymous manner is clearly an Action of the
>> second kind, and any Action that does not involve Responsible Harm
>> must be an allowable Action in response, or else one does not have
>> full Liberty. So under the NSC any human may attempt to be anonymous,
>> if s/he wishes, without Breaching the NSC, but any other human may
>> also decide to not associate or in any manner interact with anyone
>> attempting to be anonymous and to persuade others to do likewise (all
>> of which are forms of Social Preferencing), also without Breaching the
>> NSC. Since SMN theory implies that attempting to be anonymous has
>> negative effects on the ability of all humans (including the Actor) to
>> optimally increase their Lifetime Happinesses, I choose to Social
>> Preference against anyone who acts in that manner. Note carefully that
>> Social Preferencing includes any Action that does not Effect
>> Responsible Harm to another human.
>>
> No confusion on my part. I agree with everything you say here. (in
> concept at least, if not with some specifics)

There you go again. If you agree with the principles of something then
you cannot logically disagree with any statements which those principles
and that "something" logically imply (what you are calling the
"specifics"). There can be no inconsistency between something in theory
("in concept" as you said) and the logically derived actions and
practices that follow from it (your "specifics"). If you insist on such
disagreement and you cannot show me where my logic is faulty then you
are being illogical (which I am sorry to say implies that you are also
being irrational). In case this is not clear, I will spell it out.

If one acts illogically (against or contrary to logic) then one is
effectively saying that or acting as if A can be nonA. But since
logically A=nonA implies *any* statement whatever! (Consult a basic
course in logic and Boolean algebra on the Internet to see why this is
true.) Your action against logic is tantamount to the acceptance of any
statement at all and hence is completely irrational.

But most important of all, your statement above does not list and
describe the "some specifics" with which you do not agree, so there is
nothing for me to actually refute or additionally explain in an attempt
to persuade you about them. Talking in vague generalities does not even
provide yourself with sufficient details for you to even begin to
analyze and to think about your own apparent misgivings.

>>> I believe information is owned by the individual who created it. If
>>> personal information is an individual's property, then unauthorized
>>> use of that information must, by definition, be considered theft.
>>>
>> No. Information has fundamentally different Attributes
>>
> Don't confuse "personal" information with "public" information. I
> could provide a lengthy definition, but I think we can use the common
> meanings here.

I am simply amazed that you could possibly think that there would be any
sort of common understanding about the exact detailed meaning of
"personal information" and "public information" (at least as it relates
to the type of information rather than the place of the information).
Any such notion of commonality is preposterous when there is not even
any common understanding of just what is and is not "information". In
fact, the only totally clear distinction is related to the place of the
information. If the information is in the mind/brain of only one
individual then it is "personal" to that individual. Otherwise the
information is "public" or capable of being made so by the one or more
others who have the information.

> I can define the exact dividing line later if needed,

"Exact dividing lines" are essential before any meaningful discussion
can take place. Without such "exact dividing lines", one is not talking
about anything definite and specific, and therefore one is not talking
about anything that exists. You do not seem to realize that.

> but for now it is enough to say that they are objectively different in
> my mind.

Well I am glad for your mind, but what is in *your* mind does not help
other people to decide what social actions will optimally increase their
lifetime happinesses.

>> (for one, the
>> ability to make exact copies) than either Material Existents or Real
>> Estate. In terms of the NSC metaphysics, Information is a Level-1 or
>> greater Existent, or in vernacular terms one may describe Information
>> as pure "structure". For that reason, the way humans should best
>> interact relative to Information will not be and cannot be the same as
>> the best ways to interact with respect to Material Existents and Real
>> Estate (which are each also different from the other). Note that
>> "should best interact" is defined as all Actions that will enable each
>> person to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same
>> time.
>>

Since you made no comment on the above, I think it is most likely that
you do not understand it. I am not suggesting this as any negative about
your "worth" as a human being and a potential future Freeman. I am only
suggesting that if you cannot understand the beginning portion of
definitions in the NSC, and see the need for them, you are one of those
people who are not currently able to reach a deep understanding of SMN,
the NSC and Social Preferencing. Rather you will only reach a more
shallow understanding (but still quite sufficient to become and
effective and important member of Freeman Society) *after* others have
both shown the way and perhaps developed better ways to explain the
validity of the ideas and the practicality of their implementation.

>>> However, no rational libertarian will recommend a lifestyle of
>>> absolute anonymity, precisely because it will likely carry with it
>>> the cost of negative social preferencing. i.e. - not releasing
>>> credit history information will most likely result in distrust by
>>> lenders.
>> Yes, anyone with *incorrect* notions will always find that the
>> exigencies of practical reality will cause them to make exceptions to
>> such notions. In fact, as a general rule of logic, if exceptions to a
>> principle or axiom need to be made that is an indication that the
>> principle or axiom is fundamentally invalid, usually because it is not
>> dealing with the root and basis in reality of what is really needed to
>> make such decisions.
>>
> Choosing to associate with someone who requires personal information
> as a prerequisite for that association in one circumstance, while
> choosing not to associate with another person who requires that same
> information, does not negate the rationality of either choice.

Yes, it does, since if one understands human reality adequately one will
know that being open about personal information with respect to all
those who would not Intend Responsible Harm to one will always be in the
interest of optimally increasing one's lifetime happiness.

> It simply means that the value of the first association was deemed to be
> more than the value of the information, while the value of the second
> association was deemed to be insufficient for the price (ie-personal
> information) that was required. The principles of free choice and of
> social preferencing remain valid.

Wrong. There is *no* price to pay for being open about *all* personal
information to those who will not Intend Responsible Harm to you. I
hereby challenge *anyone* to provide a counter example. If you still
think that there is a "price" then you have missed a major point of the
SMN theory.

Perhaps it needs to once again be pointed out here that I am talking
about actions by Freemen in the Freeman Society - interactions between
all those who have Executed the NSC. The purpose of considering that is
so that it can be first determined whether or not such a society will
actually accomplish its purpose of enabling each member to optimally
increase hir lifetime happiness. Only if and after determining the
adequacy of the Freeman Society for that purpose will it then be clear
that people should begin to form such a society. At no time am I
advocating such actions as making all possible personal information
available within the present society of many very mixed up people. OTOH,
I still do think that making all my life history information and
personal characteristic information available to anyone in the current
society will be beneficial to me without doing me any harm. The only
exception to life history information would be related to any illegal
activities that I have undertaken, if any, but which have not been
uncovered and prosecuted. The reason for the exception is because in the
current society revealing such information publicly would undoubtedly
cause me harm.

>> Such a complete and consistent root and basis for
>> making all ethical decisions is precisely what SMN theory supplies
>> (which is why I think of it as an extension and correction of
>> Objectivism making it consistent and complete), and which no
>> libertarian principles do.
>>
> We might discuss the inconsistencies and incompleteness of Objectivism
> some time.

Actually, I started a Yahoo group called "beyond_ objectivism" for just
that purpose, but it has gone nowhere, mainly because I have not had
time to post to it, to promote it and to attract anyone to it - which in
turn is mainly because it is not a priority for me - which in turn is
because I have little confidence that objectivists will be open to
seeing anything wrong with Objectivism.

> I think this is at the root of where I am having a problem
> accepting your SMN theory.

If you have not seen any inconsistencies and incompleteness from what I
have written here so far and everything in the SMN and the NSC
annotations, then I don't think that any further discussion between you
and me will help.

>> However, there is another problem with your statement above of which
>> you are likely not aware. The word "rational" applied to Choices and
>> Actions is a very slippery and tricky word to nail down. I had great
>> difficultly myself arriving at any consistent definition for Rational,
>> which I found that I could not do without (even though Mises in his
>> seminal work "Human Action" totally eschews the "rational" notion). I
>> have never seen any adequate definition of "rational" from either a
>> libertarian or even an Objectivist (for the latter of whom it is very
>> fundamental - being called "irrational" is the worst possible insult
>> that an Objectivist can make).
>>
> The meaning of the word "rational" that I use, and that is
> consistent with Objectivism is: "Any thought process that is objectively
> logical." However, this does not imply that what is "rational" is
> necessarily reality. Two people can objectively and logically arrive
> at different "Rational" conclusions. But, this can logically only
> happen when there is ambiguous or incomplete information. In other
> words, two people can't have the same precise and complete information
> and objectively and logically come to different conclusions.

There you go once again trying to teach me what I already know better
than you! I will not waste my time again trying to show you why the
above is inadequate, particularly because my NSC definition and
annotation regarding "Rational Action" should make that clear. If they
do not then what *specifically* about them do you not agree with or not
understand or think is in error? and why?

>>> But, if you want to be a social outcast or hermit, it's your choice.
>>>
>> Yes, but no one can both take an Action and also not get the
>> consequences. That is contrary to reality.
>>
> Exactly my point. It's a choice.

But that is not what I said. So it was not "exactly [your] point" at
all, but rather much more foundational and explanatory than your
"point", as I continued to explain next:

>> The consequences of one's
>> Actions bear the same relationship to the Actions as does a physical
>> reaction to an action - recall Newton's third law of motion law: "To
>> each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In the
>> case of anonymity the consequences are both strong Social Preferencing
>> against the person who attempts to be anonymous, and the loss of many
>> contact and connection opportunities from which s/he might otherwise
>> benefit.

but to which you made no comment.

At this point of this very long message and because the next portion
is going to take considerable discussion (partly because Roy finally
brings up an example well worth discussing) I decided to end this
portion of the reply.

--Paul

On 05/13/2009 06:46 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote
>> On 04/29/2009 04:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@> wrote
>>> Fraud is another matter. I consider fraud to be a use of force.
>>>
>> Roy, excuse me for having to say this and not meaning to insult you,
>> but you are merely spouting the standard libertarian mantra.
>>
> No offense taken...this time. You just don't know me very well. You
> were simply unaware that I arrived at this conclusion independently
> before I was ever exposed to libertarian ideas as such.

That does not negate my statement above, since I made no suggestion that
you obtained your statement from libertarians.
However, as usual you make no attempt to explain why you think that
fraud is "a use of force" when it is clear that no actual physical force
is used in fraud. Instead if physical force or threat of it is used then
the violation is called "extortion" rather than fraud.

> "Mantra" implies that I accepted it without question.

No. Mantra as I used it means: Slogan or Watchword. It is derived from
the religious meaning:* 1* *:* a Vedic hymn or prayer *2* *:* a verbal
spell, ritualistic incantation, or mystic formula used devotionally in
popular Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism
None of these meanings imply that you "accepted it without question".
Perhaps you should use a dictionary as you are writing and thinking. I
recommend a subscription to Merriam Webster online (we have one ourselves).

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

Well that is good. I have not ever suggested differently. What I have
suggested, and am now fairly convinced about, is that you simply do not
have knowledge and method background in critical thinking and logic
sufficient to be able to deeply understand the SMN, NSC and Social
Preferencing. It is certainly possible that you can repair these
deficits, and I earnestly hope that you will do so.

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

The latter is not the case if you agree with Robert Ringer. I also read
his book when it first came out, but was very displeased with many of
his ideas and suggestions. I consider his book as being very negative
for influencing libertarians and the fact that so many libertarians and
objectivists embraced it was highly influential in turning many other
people against them. The major detail of his book that I remember, and
was revolted by, was his advocacy of personal bankruptcy as a method to
get out of financial trouble and start one's life on the path of
"Looking Out for Number One". I hope that it is obvious to you that
personal bankruptcy is equivalent to fraud. That it is allowed by
governments is an indictment against them for permitting personal fraud
against businesses including credit card companies. And, of course, the
rest of us are the ones who end up paying the debts of the person
declaring personal bankruptcy, through increased charges from the
companies that were defrauded. I have personal experience with this
because it was a tactic that my older brother (Robert "Bob" James
Wakfer) used when he was in the computer business in the 1980s. He
"justified" it to me by explaining that it was perfectly alright because
the companies which he did not pay for the products that he had obtained
from them "had already inflated their prices because they knew that some
of their customers would default on payment. I am merely one of them." I
hope that you and other readers can see the social implications and the
consequences of that statement.

> Also, it is hard to completely agree with something, but find
> completely different words to describe it.

No. If you truly and deeply understand the basis for a statement then it
is quite easy to find other ways, including examples, to express it. It
is only when you do not truly and deeply understand what you are
verbalizing that you can only say the same words over and over again.
The typical Objectivist, for example, says very little in hir own words,
but continually quotes passages from Ayn Rand. The fact that you arrived
at these ideas before reading much that was labeled as libertarian is
quite irrelevant to this point.

> And even if this is is a
> "mantra", that, in itself, is not an argument against its validity.

Quite correct, which is why I have given independent arguments to that
effect.

> So then, why say it?

I said it because the statement (that you made) is so shallow in
understanding and so contrary to any reasonable definition of "force"
that it needed to be disparaged as well as logically negated.

>> Please tell me precisely **where** during a fraudulent exchange is any
>> physical force initiated?
>>
> Force does not need to by physical. See above argument about DURESS.

What you gave above is in no manner an "argument". However, if you are
going to allow a definition of "force" that is not physical, then you
are on a very slippery slope of ethics. There is then no reason why
someone cannot claim that s/he is justified to retaliate with physical
force when s/he is verbally insulted (psychological force according to
many), fired or refused a job (the latter two, examples of economic
force according to many). BTW, here you show a major difference with
most libertarians and all objectivists, since they clearly understand
that physical force is the only kind that should be forbidden. That is
why they separate fraud from force. So your statement above, which I
said was effectively a libertarian "mantra", is actually only the
shortest form of description of fraud that most libertarians would make.
If challenged they would then elaborate with the explanation that I gave
below.

>> The standard libertarian (and Objectivist) answer (which I used to
>> swallow too, because I had no better answer) is that fraud is force
>> because if the defrauded person had known the truth, then s/he would
>> have needed to be forced to make the exchanged on the same terms.
>>
> Okay, this logic works (sorta), but it's not the best argument I can
> think of.

But once again you have made no attempt to actually *present* that "best
argument [you] can think of". Roy, do you not realize that you are
constantly writing nothing but "opinions", without any substance,
including reasons and detailed arguments?

> As I said, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian.

That is irrelevant. I am not criticizing the Libertarian Party here
(which would be another matter entirely). I am criticizing the
thinking demonstrated by vast numbers of libertarians as expressed in
their public written and spoken words.

>> But that answer is logically a false description of what actually occurs,
>> and thus skirts and prevents the discovery of a more fundamental
>> reason for why fraud must generally be held to be a Violation in order
>> for there to be optimal social order.

Once again you ignore my substantive comment and reply only to an
explanatory, parenthetical (effectively Meta) note that was not intended
to need and comment

>> I have not capitalized the word "fraud" because it is not even defined
>> in the NSC.
>>
> Perhaps imprecise, but I like the word "fraud" anyway because most
> people I talk to agree with me on what it means.

Upon reading the above, I shook my head with incredulity! How can it
logically be possible that a word can be "imprecise" and at the same
time you are certain that "most people [you] talk to agree with [you] on
what it means".

Please note that I did not say that "fraud" was "imprecise" or
ambiguous, but only that I had not made it a defined word in the NSC. In
fact, I think that "fraud" is quite a precisely defined word in English
and that my definition of it would be extremely similar to what most
people understand. I only did not use the word in the NSC for the reason
that I described before:

>> The reason for this is because fraud is but one important
>> example covered by the more general concept of Responsibility under
>> a Valid Contract, which, in order to be valid, must have both
>> Termination Clauses and Breach Penalty Clauses. Under the NSC, a
>> Breach of a Valid Contract is grounds for a Charge of Breach of the
>> NSC itself and consequent Revocation of all NSC Privileges if found
>> Guilty.

Again you make no comment about, and therefore show no understanding of,
the important ideas expressed above.

>>> Misrepresenting or withholding relevant information, so as to
>>> influence another's choice must be considered a restitutionable
>>> offense.
>>>
>> Even if that were true, it does not equate such action to the
>> initiation of physical force. But once again it is not always true
>> that such a fraud is either a Violation (the NSC more general term
>> replacing "offense") or requires restitution. In fact, Responsible
>> Harm to a person is the more fundamental determiner of whether or
>> not s/he should be Restituted.
>>
>> Here is an example:
>> I will use the example where I roll back the odometer of my car,
>> before selling it to you, because I want to get you to pay me more
>> money than any reasonable person would consider the car to be worth
>> based on the actual number of miles it has been driven.
>> But I will not exhaustively consider all the different situations
>> related to the NSC that might relate to this (whether under a Valid
>> Contract or not, whether the Contract contains the odometer reading or
>> not, all the harms that could result, the possible Breach of the NSC
>> involved, etc). Rather I want to simply address one completely
>> possible situation:
>>
>> I am as certain as I can be that the car is in such excellent shape
>> that it will run and last as if the odometer reading to which I set
>> it were true, and furthermore the car actually lasts even longer and with
>> less cost than most cars that have the odometer readings at which it
>> was sold.
>>
>> My question in this case is then why should such an action even if
>> found out years later be deemed to be an offense? And what could
>> possibly be the Restitution for such offense since the Lifetime
>> Happiness of the purchaser is at least as high as it would have been
>> if I had not taken that action.
>>
>> Now you may say: but the purchaser *has* had hir Lifetime Happiness
>> reduced because s/he paid more money for the car than s/he would have
>> if s/he had known the true odometer reading. However, this assumes
>> that I would have been willing to sell the car at that lower price
>> knowing full well that it was worth more, so the logic is invalid.
>>
>> In fact, this is one of those situations that can only reasonably be
>> solved by assuming the full principle of value for value is understood
>> and used by both parties. In that case, I would have not turned the
>> odometer back. Rather I would have left it as is and done my utmost
>> to persuade the buyer of its stellar condition even at that advanced
>> mileage. Then the buyer could decide for hirself whether s/he wanted
>> to pay me for the worth of the car now or later once s/he had fully
>> determined it (plus interest, of course).
>>
>> It is also interesting that you said "withholding relevant
>> information" because in my experience most libertarians do not agree
>> with you here. Most of them invoke the "buyer beware principle"
>>
> Ah yes, Caveat Emptor, "Let the buyer beware." I see that I should
> have been more specific above. Yes, the buyer does have a
> responsibility for due diligence. However, if the buyer in your above
> example had asked the seller (rather than just look at the odometer)
> "How many miles does this car have on it?" Thereby fulfilling his
> responsibility for due diligence. And then, if the seller had
> knowingly lied about the car's true mileage, this would constitute a
> "fraud" by way of INITIATING a MODIFIED EVENT by using DURESS (part
> 2.) and thereby causing RESPONSIBLE HARM.

Once again you ignore the most substantive parts of the text, and
moreover, appear to have not even read it thoroughly or with sufficient
comprehension to respond appropriately.
I am going to ignore your attempt to use the definitions from the NSC,
since it is very clear that you have no real understanding of them.
I already covered whether or not the buyer asked the seller about the
odometer reading, by my text above:

<<But I will not exhaustively consider all the different situations
related to the NSC that might relate to this (whether under a Valid
Contract or not, whether the Contract contains the odometer reading or
not, ...<<

Thus my example was meant to be irrelevant to that detail of the
transaction, even though such detail would determine whether or not the
conditions of exchange were a Breach of the NSC. Rather what I was
interested in examining here was merely the question of harm involved
(which you have not addressed at all). Once again we are "talking past"
each other and getting nowhere.

I have only one more comment on your text above.
The whole idea of someone having "a responsibility for due diligence" is
nonsensical from a social point of view. The only such responsibility
that anyone has is purely to hirself, as a method by which to be more
likely to optimally increase hir lifetime happiness.

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

Well good! For the very first time you have come up with an excellent
example well worth dissecting, analyzing and discussing. However, it is
not anything that I have not already thought of and made sure that it
was covered consistently by SMN, NSC and Social Preferencing.

Before I explain how they work with respect to such examples, I simply
want to point out that your example is very different from mine. In my
example the seller did no harm to the buyer, even by the evaluation of
the buyer. So because of that difference your example is quite
irrelevant to the current discussion and to the points that I was
attempting to get through to you.

Actually the way your example is handled by the NSC and its definitions
is very simple. (I assume here that all parties are Freemen bound by the
NSC, although how and why a person of Bob's obvious character would ever
become a Freeman, I do not know).
1) Bob has very clearly and fully Intentionally committed gross
Responsible Harm to Ann. She is Entitled to Request Restitution from him
as she decides (but as usual for all Restitution Requests, they become
public knowledge and she will also be subject to the consequences of any
Social Preferencing related to her Requested amount - both if too small
or too large in the judgment of those who do the Social Preferencing).
Since Bob intentionally committed an Act of Responsible Harm, Ann or any
other Freeman can bring against him a Charge of Breach of Social
Contract (the NSC), which upon being upheld (he is found Guilty
according to the methods of Trial detailed in the NSC), he will no
longer be a Freeman. Loss of Freeman Status will generally mean that no
Freeman will Interact with him in any manner. In a Freeman Society there
is no "public" Property or Real Estate, so lack of interaction means
that Bob will be isolated on his own Real Estate and not able to gain
the essentials of life from anyone, unless and until he finds someone to
effectively take him on as a ward.

While Bob's Violational Action was a partial cause of Ann's not being
killed in the blast, it was not the Effective Cause (read the definition
carefully again). But even if it was there is no such thing as a
"Responsible Benefit", which would impose a Responsibility upon the one
receiving the Benefit to make a Value payment of some kind to the
benefactor, nevertheless, if Ann wishes she could reduce her Restitution
Request somewhat because she thinks his Act, even though not Intended to
do so, has saved her life. That would be totally irrational IMO, but Ann
is Entitled to make any Restitution Request that she wants. (In this
case of too small a Restitution Request, she might also be Socially
Preferenced against for being so irrational.)

Now I will address some specific questions, thoughts and statements you
made at the end of your example:

<<Should Ann be thanking Bob?<<
No. His vile Action was not the Effective Cause of her not dying.

<<Maybe Ann should pay Bob for the increase in LIFETIME HAPPINESS (she
would have to agree) that he caused her, albeit unintentionally.<<
No. First, he was not the Effective Cause of her not dying and, second,
a Freeman has no Responsibility to Reward anyone who Benefits hir
intentionally or UnIntentionally. In vernacular English, full liberty
requires that no person can impose an obligation on another. If you
think about it you will see that this is a direct implication of SMN
(which is why it is not a Requirement of the NSC).

<<point is, you can't rationally rely only on restitution as full
punishment for all crimes.<<
First, one does not use "punishment" at all. Restitution needs to be
seen as entirely different and separate from any punishment, which is
always irrational (except as next explained), but is actually not
forbidden by the NSC. Second, there is a kind of "punishment" under the
NSC, which is being ostracized from the Freeman Society by being found
Guilty of a Breach of the NSC itself. Finally, yes one can fully rely on
these mechanisms and the use of strong Social Preferencing to deal with
all possible cases of Social Interactions (there is no need for any
definition of "crime" or "criminal" in a Freeman Society).

<<And you can't use future unintentional and unknowable consequences as
a basis for calculating restitution.<<
I am not doing that, but that is totally the prerogative of the Victim,
together with the moderating effects of strong Social Preferencing.

<<crime (or VIOLATION) is a crime regardless of unrelated future
consequences.
If "crime" is replaced by "Breach of NSC", then I totally agree. What
needs to be realized is that the NSC totally separates the Evaluation of
Responsible Harm Effected by the Violation from the Act of Violation itself. In
is important to also note that "crime" is not even defined
in the NSC (and certainly not used, and the concept of Violation is
importantly different from any of the concepts of crime in current
societies.

<<Bob should go to jail... at least.<<
Ridiculous! What good would that do Ann? There will be no jails as in
the goal society because there will be no taxes to pay for them. There
will likely be organizations that provide Restitution extraction
services - that become the wards (owners, effectively) of convicted
Violators and are experts at getting them to pay the Restitution as
quickly and completely as possible.

>> (the onus to find out information is on the buyer not the seller) to
>> maintain that so long as you do not say or clearly imply anything
>> false during a transaction you are within your "rights". I, of course,
>> strongly disagree with that as I have done for over 30 years.
>>
> Ethically, I agree with you. But the, "What did he know, and when did
> he know it?" question makes it impossible to enforce legally.

First, and most importantly, in a Freeman Society there is no one to
"enforce" anything (except Defense of Property) and there is no notion
of "legally" (which implies a government and a body of laws).
However, the question of who did what with respect to fraud is entirely
settled by the definition of Valid Contract and the fact that the NSC
does not recognize and adjudicate any agreement *except* a Valid
Contract. If a Freeman is so irrational as to make an Exchange of Value
with someone without using a Valid Contract, then s/he has no recourse
to anything but Social Preferencing. So once again all bases are covered
by the combination of NSC and Social Preferencing in the goal Freeman
Society.

>> Nevertheless your statement is fraught with problems unless you can
>> come up with a clear definition of "relevant information"
>>
> Relevant was a less than precise choice of words on my part. What I
> should have said is, "Factual material information as requested by the
> buyer"

If the buyer has requested information to be delivered before the sale
is comsumated, then the only way that anything resembling "withholding"
could occur is if:
1) the buyer forgets that s/he requested the information,
2) the buyer decides that s/he no longer needs that information,
OR
3) the seller provides false information in response to the buyer's
request.

None of those cases can be correctly classified as "withholding
information" and the 3rd would be clear fraud.

>> - relevant
>> to whom, when and in what way? In fact, I defy you to give any general
>> and complete definition.

And you still have not given any such definition.

>> I certainly can't (but don't need to,
>> because the SMN and NSC handle this sort of potential harm entirely
>> differently).

Here was a place where it would have been reasonable for you to ask:
"How do they handle this differently?"

>>> Please understand that I am not defending libertarian concepts or
>>> libertarians, as such. I am simply using what is familiar to me as a
>>> basis for exploring your ideas. I think our difference are probably
>>> more semantic than substantive.
>>>
>> Our differences are most certainly semantic, but only because of the
>> multiple meanings that the words you use have in the vernacular
>> language (my uneducated guess is that English is probably the worst in
>> this respect).
>>
> I used to play the game of WHY when I was a child. My children and
> grandchildren have played it as well. The object of the game is to
> exhaust the questionee with continual questions of "Why?" to every
> answer that is given. The first few "why" questions result in real and
> useful knowledge and understanding being transferred. But at some
> point, the questions become ridiculous and do not serve to advance the
> knowledge of the questioner, but only to annoy the questionee.
> In a way, this is how I feel about dissecting word meanings. It is
> constructive and necessary to question the meaning of a key word,
> perhaps even to question the meaning of the meaning. But I think it
> starts to become counterproductive to question the meaning of the
> meaning of the meaning of a word.

What you do not seem to understand, and have likely never even realized
or thought about, is that the dictionary is necessarily "circular" in
its definitions of words. They are all defined in terms of each other.
The same is true to a certain extent with the technical terms of the NSC
and with its Clauses. The meaning of most of the advanced terms are
intricately connected with the meanings of each other and with the
Clauses that use them. This is the nature of any axiomatic system or
deductive theory.

But with respect to many words used by libertarians, objectivists and
many others in the current society, it is crucial to determine just
which of many possible dictionary meanings a person is using if one is
to attempt to understand what s/he is trying to communicate. With
ambiguous words, there can be no other way.

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

It will be difficult for anyone who does not really understand them.
Once you understand the basis and reasons for the definitions being as
they are, then you will have no problem with them. Unfortunately, few
people seem to have gotten that far.

>> But more importantly than that, we have major differences because you
>> are not basing your ethical statements on fundamental enough concepts
>> to enable them to be consistent and complete (to not allow contrary
>> actions that both fit your statement, and for any action, to enable a
>> decision of whether it is right or wrong).
>>
> While you may see inconsistencies in my views, I do not.

You constantly mix up the notion of "your views" and the clarity or lack
of clarity of your statements - so that *anyone* will be able to use
them to reach the same "views".
I have not said that I see inconsistency in "your views". (I have not
even addressed that problem.) I have been criticizing the statements
that you (wrongly) think are adequate guiding principles for "your views".
In fact, many of "your views" appear to be completely unrelated to those
"principles" and others of "your views" are clearly inconsistent with
those "principles", all of which I have clearly pointed out, but you
still refuse to see.

> To me they
> are internally consistent and based on fundamentally rational
> concepts.

Then you are clearly logically unable to see that they are not, and this
is why any discussion with you can go no further in the direction of
analyzing libertarian/objectivist text.

> So far the only inconsistencies you have shown me are in the
> nuances of word definitions.

Far from nuances, they are the essences of the word meanings.

> However, I am holding out hope that I
> will find something fundamentally flawed with my views.

Once again you fail to understand the difference between "your views"
and the meaning, consistency and completeness of the statements that you
are using to describe the origin of "your views".

> I love being
> proven wrong. Being right may fluff the ego, but being wrong is the
> source of new knowledge.

Absolutely correct!

> Doesn't everyone feel that way? ;

I would like to think so, but unfortunately that is not true for most
people.

>>>> << but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
>>>> implementation. <<
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
>>>> simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
>>>> any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
>>>> must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
>>>> epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.
>>>>
>>> Yes! It is extremely important to recognize the difference between
>>> what is theoretically possible, and what is practically possible in
>>> the real world. I believe the inability of many, if not most, to
>>> understand this difference, is the primary source of both historical
>>> and current social tribulations. Any social system that ignores, or
>>> seeks to somehow change, the reality of human nature is doomed to
>>> failure.
>>>
>> You have said it very well. My only criticism is with your phrase
>> "theoretically possible". I maintain that if some principle or theory
>> cannot be brought to practical operation, then it is not actually even
>> *theoretically* possible. It is simply invalid and meaningless.
>>
> By "theoretically possible" I meant, if your theory is correct, it's
> possible.

But that was not at all implied by that phrase and your statement about
it (that there is a difference between what is "theoretically possible"
and what is "practically possible").
Rather the statement "If a theory is correct, then it is possible" is
the contrapositive of what I stated above in response: "If a theory is
not possible then it is not correct". If you know your logic then you
will also know that the contrapostive of a statement is true if and only
if the statement is true.
However, your statement that what is correct need not be possible, is
contrary to this and to what you have now said that you meant. My point
was that holding this notion that a theory or principle may be correct
and possible without being practical is harmful to one's thinking and
therefore essentially irrational. Rather, if one always looks at the
total effects of something, then what is valid for reality is almost by
definition going to be practical.

The above is different than the economic "impracticality" at a
particular point in space/time (unreasonableness - cost total is higher
than benefit total) of some action or project that is clearly possible,
but that is because the attribute "valid" is not applicable to describe
actions.

> If I had simply said "possible" it would imply that I
> believe your theory to be correct.

Okay, but you are using "believe" where I think you mean "convinced".
The use of "believe" in this manner is totally contrary to its root
meaning (which is acceptance in the absence of any evidence or even in
the presence of evidence to the contrary). I am constantly urging others
that it would always be far better to used the phrase 'am convinced"
with some adverb such a "strongly", "somewhat", "only weakly", etc to
describe the degree of one's conviction.

Perhaps you will see from this example, how difficult it is to use the
language to get across one's intended meaning and how easily and how
often the taking of the wrong meaning can lead to misunderstanding,
contention and finally rancor, if the participants are not patient and
do not have fully realization of this fundamental communication problem.

>> Philosophy instructors delight in raising all sorts of theoretical
>> examples such as unicorns, truth machines, people who cannot lie,
>> people who always lie, etc. I reject all of these as useful for any
>> purpose whatsoever. In addition, while I again totally agree with you
>> about the futility of trying to change the reality of human nature,
>> one has to very carefully examine human nature to ascertain just what
>> is its *true* reality, before one decides whether or not something is
>> contrary to that nature. I would maintain that the major problem with
>> the world today is that the vast majority of people are acting
>> contrary to their true nature, mainly because they have not yet
>> discovered the fundamental aspects of that nature.
>>
> I do not have perfect knowledge of human nature, so I can't say with
> absolute certainty what humans are capable of.

Any reasonable meaning of "human nature" is not "what humans are capable
of". Rather it is "what are the essential characteristics *common* to
all humans".
From /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 23 May
2009).
Here is what I mean by the terms "nature" and "human nature" as used above.
Nature: 2 a : the essential character or constitution of something
<the /nature/ of the controversy> <inquire into the /nature/ of heredity
-- Theodosius Dobzhansky>; /especially/ : the essence or ultimate form
of something
b : the distinguishing qualities or properties of something <the /nature/
of mathematics> <the /nature/ of a literary movement>
3 b : the fundamental character, disposition, or temperament of
mankind as a whole : HUMAN NATURE <not interested in any particular
man ... but in the /nature/ of man -- Peter Dunne>

Nature: the nature of man: b : the complex of fundamental
dispositions and traits of man sometimes considered innate
<belief that "you can't change /human nature"/ -- A.A.Van Duym>

What any particular human is "capable of" is, in general, merely an
action of that *one* human being. It may have no relationship to
anything that is *common* to all humans and so not to anything that is
*human nature*. And the only way to truly find out "what humans are
capable of" would be to examine all possible actions of all humans in
all possible situations, which is clearly impossible.

> However, I know what
> I've seen. And I haven't seen anything to convince me that a society
> of Self-Sovereign Individuals (as you describe it) is possible.

I think that is mainly because you are so far from understanding the
meaning of my description and the methods of interaction of members of a
the Freeman Society.
However, I am pleased to see that you wrote "to convince me" rather
than "to make me believe", because the latter would be the worst
possible result of my writings.

> I would like to have a discussion to explore the true nature of humanity
> at some point in the future.

The social nature of humankind is already described in the SMN treatise.
If you do not agree with some of it or if you think there is something
more that needs to be included, then please say so.

>> Kitty thought that the following quote from a story on MSNBC that she
>> just saw today fitted right in here (and I agree):
>>
>> "Can Star Trek's non-violent utopia happen?" -
>> Tricorders and transporters are cool, but the most radical invention
>> on "Star Trek" may have been its vision of a peaceful humanity.
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30626488/from/ET/
>>
>> "I do think humans might someday reach more peaceful coexistence if we
>> don't destroy the planet first, though I doubt it will be utopia,"
>> said Dennis Fox, emeritus professor of legal studies and psychology at
>> the University of Illinois at Springfield. "If utopia does come, it
>> won't be because human nature changes
<http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080502-strange-humans.html>,
>> or because some governmental authority or alien race forces it upon
>> us, but because we manage to create new social structures more
>> conducive to satisfying human needs and values."
>>
> "Fascinating" as Spock would say. I find this word useful when you
> don't really have an opinion worth expressing, but feel obligated to
> say something.

But one should never "feel obligated" to say anything. Any such
"obligated" feeling it an irrational imposition and action that you have
placed upon yourself and you will be better off without.
To modify the incorrect saying: "if you say anything nice, then don't
say anything at all", "if you can't saying anything of value, then don't
say anything at all" (which is a principle of correct action). The
Internet is getting choked up by people not following this principle -
so much so that it is very hard to find the valuable among all the
worthless junk.

> Maybe that's why Spock used it so often.

Perhaps. But since he also looked deep in thought when he said it, I
always took it as his way of urging himself to fully consider it and try
to understand it. Sometimes such talking to oneself can be useful.

>> Naturally both I and Kitty strongly think that SMN theory and its
>> twin implementations via the NSC and Social Preferencing *are* that
>> "new social structure[] more conducive to satisfying human needs and
>> values". Unfortunately neither Fox nor anyone else of academic, or
>> media stature, yet knows that it exists.
>>>> << However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
>>>> envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
>>>> many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
>>>> government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
>>>> for you too. <<
>>>>
>>>> I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
>>>> of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
>>>> to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
>>>> begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
>>>> lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
>>>> apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
>>>> works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
>>>> continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
>>>> oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
>>>> up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
>>>> greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
>>>> evolving self-ordered society.
>>>>
>>> And here is where I see the practical getting in the way of the
>>> possible.
>>>
>> We are not saying that it will be easy. If it were that easy it would
>> have occurred already. All we are saying is that it is possible and
>> that it must be tried (all other ways have failed).
>>
> If you eliminate all that is impossible, everything that remains,
> regardless of how improbable, must be possible. Does this apply here?

Yes, I think that it does. However, I don't see it as anything very
"improbable" since it all directly stems from the basics of human nature
in reality. Yes, it is very "different" than current social practices,
but that is only because current social practices are so wrong, which,
in turn, is precisely because they are in many way contrary to the basic
of human nature in reality.

>>>> << Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
>>>> exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
>>>> propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
>>>> the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
>>>> People Problem." <<
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
>>>> society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
>>>> but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
>>>> you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
>>>> eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
>>>> and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
>>>> either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
>>>> "school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
>>>> only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
>>>> practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
>>>> irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
>>>> hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
>>>> continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
>>>> "practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
>>>> result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
>>>> supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
>>>> everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
>>>> Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
>>>> governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
>>>> self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
>>>> vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
>>>> to those same people.
>>>>
>>> I wish we lived in a world where we could simply ignore the
>>> "stupid."
>>>
>> Then first, start looking after your health by all possible methods so
>> that you can have a very long life, and second, get involved with the
>> SelfSIP project.
>>
> Thanks. Perhaps.
>
>>> Maybe someday there will be too few of them to exert control over
>>> our lives, through their support of governments that are NOT
>>> inclined to let anyone just opt out of their web of control without
>>> a fight.
>>>
>> The key is to be subtle, slow, non-violent, mostly unseen, highly
>> dispersed and to keep totally clear of hot issues (such as weapons,
>> drugs, money laundering, overt tax evasion methods, replacement
>> currencies, etc).
>>
> This is another area where I would like to have an in-depth discussion
> -- on the practical application of the above strategy. I can see a
> couple of major obstacles to be overcome.

It is not clear from your remark above for what purpose you are
interested in discussing strategy. Since I have given up on any
possible in situ bettering of the current society, I would only be
interested in strategy to build a Freeman Society containing people
who are within that current society. While I made a small attempt
above to describe a little of the strategy of how a Freemen Society
will come about via the actions and inactions by those in the current
society who seek to be part of it, I am not interested in discussing
at this time the detailed strategy of creating a Freeman Society
containing a significant fraction of those in the current society.
This is premature until there are a significant number of people who
understand the operation of a Freeman Society, want to see it come
about, and are teaching its understanding to others and persuading
them of its values. This prematurity is why the section "Program of
Implementation of the Project Goals" contains nothing but an index
page http://SelfSIP.org/implementations/index.html with the titles
of a couple of proposed sections.

In any case, a *discussion* about anything is always premature until at
least one of the discussants has done some fundamental reading,
researching, thinking and writing (which I have not yet done
sufficiently). Otherwise it is little more that babbling, small talk chat.

> Rationality without practicality is irrational.

This makes no sense, since rationality cannot be irrational - A cannot
be nonA. I think that what you mean is both: "If something is rational
it must also be practical" and the contrapositive: "If something is not
practical, then it must be irrational".

>>>> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
>>>> precise and scholarly (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
>>>> I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
>>>> intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
>>>> of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
>>>> few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
>>>> and/or desire to understand. <<
>>>>
>>>> It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
>>>> readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
>>>> very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
>>>> libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
>>>> definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
>>>> did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
>>>> during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
>>>> highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
>>>> taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
>>>> super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
>>>> course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
>>>> years in the late 70s and early 80s.
>>>>
>>>> It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
>>>> individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
>>>> ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
>>>> of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
>>>> question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
>>>> implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
>>>> have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
>>>> :-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
>>>> then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
>>>> interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
>>>> social actions.
>>>>
>>> I read some of your other foundational materials and reread the
>>> Meta-Needs treatise again. I now have even more questions, concerns,
>>> and critiques than I did before. But, I will save them for another
>>> thread.
>>>
>> Good, but I have already noted that your next message (in response to
>> the first part of my reply to this message - which I realize now it
>> was a mistake to post before this was ready), did not address any
>> direct text or ideas within SMN, NSC or anything else on SelfSIP.org
>>
> I have tried to correct that (somewhat) in this post.

Yes, I appreciate that you have, and as a result, I am more inclined to
think that there may possibly be some value to a continuing dialog with you.

>>>> << (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
>>>> with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
>>>> beyond the scope of this article.) <<
>>>>
>>>> Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
>>>> all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
>>>> rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
>>>> reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have
>>>> picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.
>>>>
>>>> We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
>>>> too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
>>>> theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
>>>> fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
>>>> between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
>>>> Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
>>>> changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
>>>> although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
>>>> conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
>>>> understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
>>>> idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
>>>> only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
>>>> methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
>>>> will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
>>>> exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
>>>> discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
>>>>
>>>> << I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
>>>> that there's more of them than there are of you. <<
>>>>
>>>> The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
>>>> These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
>>>> - granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
>>>> negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
>>>> ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
>>>> individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
>>>> novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
>>>> mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
>>>> and voluntarily deal only with the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
>>>> all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
>>>> system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
>>>> self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
>>>> doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
>>>> consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
>>>> current government interference between parties - have a contractual
>>>> relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
>>>> is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
>>>> those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
>>>> (I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
>>>> other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
>>>> when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
>>>> "box".
>>>>
>>> All sounds good, but a whole lot easier said than done. Though, I'm
>>> not saying that it isn't worth the effort.
>>>
>> But you need to thoroughly understand the SMN and the NSC to fully
>> understand that it can be done and how it actually is all done, there
>> and with the addition of strong Social Preferencing.
>>
> Unfortunately right now, the more I understand about SMN and NSC, the
> more questions I have.

But until this response you had not asked any.
If you will ask them in terms of the text of the SMN, NSC or
descriptions of Social Preferencing (or anything else on SelfSIP), then
I will be glad to answer and explain how they are dealt with and why it
is the best method for all human benefit.


--Paul