[Meta
Although I rarely do so anymore, this message required a couple of
quick responses from me before it was released from the queue. Please
see them below within "[]" marks.
/Meta --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Meta
> We changed the title to be more descriptive. Better late than never.
> /Meta

Makes Sense

> On 06/10/2009 01:32 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> > Responses in bold below
> >
> > [Meta
> > MoreLife Yahoo is a strictly text group because otherwise, any editing
> > of messages before posting would have to be done to both the text and
> > html messages (which appear in separate windows when the group is in
> > html mode. For this reason bold does not work and if you want to
> > signify anything special then you need to resort to the old UseNet
> > method of placing "*" for bold and "_" or "\" for italics before and
> > after the desired text. Also for this reason, please do not use the
> > "rich text editor" at the group message entry or reply webpage since
> > doing so will cause us more editing work to clean up the mess.
> >
> > In any case you do not need to do anything special either when using
> > an email reply or when replying at the group webpages, because the
> > numbers of ">"s, the blank lines between text and the "who wrote"
> > lines at the top are sufficient to indicate the authors of all text
> > and keep everything nicely separated.
> > /Meta --Paul]
> >
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/09/2009 09:43 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
> >>
> >>> I learned about you through one of the forum posts at www.mises.org
> >>> <http://www.mises.org/> a couple months ago.
> >>>
> >> I think that I can guess which one, but I would like to know for sure,
> >> please. And even better would be to know what about the post attracted
> >> you to investigate further.
> >>
> > The article I was reading was: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp
>
> That is what I thought. It was my critique of a section of Mises'
> _Human Action_ Chap 2 on the principle of methodological individualism.
> Unfortunately, as is so often the case with my critiques of revered
> people, on sites or within circles that revere them, there has been no
> response. I can only conclude from such lack of response that most
> people who read it decide to simply ignore it since they cannot refute
> it.

It is dangerous to idolize individuals to the point that they become
Gods.  There are no sacred cows.  Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Walter
Block, Marc Faber, and so on all fall into the category of human.
I respect their contributions, but I also recognize that they do/did
not get everything right.

> Ignoring something that you don't like is a prime method of
> relegating it to unimportance in the evaluation of others, no matter how
> true it is.

Agreed.  This is the trap that an individual should avoid to the
extent that truth is the objective.

>While it is true that my critique did not get posted until 2
> days after the article (a simple reprint of Mises' text) because it was
> long and got initially rejected by the system, clearly it did get read
> by some people, you at the least.
>
> I would still appreciate your telling me what about it attracted you
> to further investigate me.

I found myself in disagreement with the article in the I / We / Ego
section.  In reading your comment I found that you articulated my
disagreement, and it made me want to learn more.

> >> This information will be valuable to me
> >> because I am having some difficulty attracting people who are capable
> >> of understanding my ideas and are in sufficient agreement to even wish
> >> to engage me in dialog about them.

One of the reasons that it is difficult to attract individuals is that
many people do not read the long comments (even the people that read
mises.org).  It may be wise to break the comment into bite-size
chunks.  I know some people that feel insulted by long posts.  These
individuals purposefully ignore the long ones.

> >> This is understandable since those
> >> ideas are not part of any currently established and widely known social
> >> model, and one of the major problems with current society is the lack
> >> of truly open minded and analytical people.

The pump must be primed. Otherwise, individuals will feel like they
are swimming in the ocean.  What one doesn't understand gets ignored
or blamed for the problem.  Yesterday, my grandfather told me that the
Internet is the cause of the world's problems.  This makes no sense.
The Internet is just a tool.  The reality is that my grandfather does
not understand the Internet, and it is therefore convenient to blame
the general problems of the world on this nebulous Internet.

> > Something I have found is that individuals have to discover much of this
> > on their own.  You can provide a light or stretch out your hand, but
> > they have to take the next step.  The individual must also be willing to
> > sincerely question every principle that they have accepted as "truth".
>
> All of this is very true and I generally always act that way in all my
> education endeavors. The individual has to analyze the data, digest
> the information, extract the essences and make them a part of hir
> brain by integrating them with all hir other convictions.
>
> Almost 30 years ago, I learned from Nathaniel Branden the expression
> of "owning" one's ideas and emotions, which expression I greatly
> valued and used for many years until reading your response and writing
> this reply. I now realize that the use of the word "own" both distorts
> the process of information integration into the brain/mind and worse,
> confuses the status of such information with that of property to which
> the concept of ownership does correctly and fully apply.

I have not thought enough about this to feel comfortable venturing
beyond this depth.

> > They must also acknowledge that ideas are not Self rather they are
> > Possessions.  Possessions with the unique characteristic of being
> > possessible by all.
>
> The first, "ideas are not Self rather they are possessions", is an
> interesting expression that I had not seen or thought before, but I do
> not agree with it. In fact, I see several problems with the approach
> of these last two sentences:
> 1) The clear distinction between "data" and "information" should always
> be made. (In fact, I think that the Natural Social Contract (NSC) may
> need to be altered in order to make this clear.)

I still need to read the Natural Social Contract.  I am assuming that
you are disagreeing with the possession part of the statement.  My
idea is not me rather it is an entity that was generated by me with
the help of some stimuli.

> 2) "Ideas" are definitely information rather than data. They are a
> product of the individual human brain/mind acting on the data that it
> receives from some external source.

I am confused about the difference between information and data.  I
would lump them in the same category.  Again I have not thought about
this very much.

> 3) For that same reason each instance of an idea is actually unique to
> the person in whose brain/mind it resides. It is uniquely integrated
> with all hir other knowledge and is essentially inseparable from its
> integration into the whole of the mind.

Never thought about this before, but I agree that each instance of an
idea is unique to the person.  This is similar to an individuals
perception of a given event or object.

If two people come up with the idea of creating a hotdog stand, then
there will be differences it the specifics.  However, the ideas are
not unique at the highest level of creating the hotdog stand, but at
the implementation level e.g. color, shape, size, portability, and so
on they may vary greatly.  The other important point about an
individual's specific ideas is that they are dynamic and change based
on new data or information that was not previously available.

> 4) Therefore, at best, any idea in a person's mind can only be partially
> communicated to others. This is as opposed to an item of property, which
> can be transferred in its entirety to another person.

Again I would agree at the micro level.  At the macro level general
ideas can be communicated completely.

> 5) The important social aspect of "possessions" is their ability to be
> "property" - to be owned by a given person (or persons under the terms
> of a contract among them). For that reason, it is important to clearly
> distinguish between the concepts of "ownership", "possession" and
> "control" as I have done within their definitions in the NSC.

I still need to read this document.

> 6) Because data is possessable by more than one person, I think that it
> is invalid, or at least confusing, to describe it as property (which
> is not thus possessable), and this is even more the case for
> information, which, as described above is unique to the individual
> mind in which it resides.

Agree that it is confusing to think of data as property especially if
classifying it as property conveys some entitlement(s) that assume
unique or exclusive possession as opposed to distributed possession.

> 7) The above analysis leads to the complete repudiation of the notion of
> copyright (which was already not part of my social system). Because of
> this, while the originator of data and information certainly has
> contractual entitlements to that data and information given that such
> contracts are concluded with the receiver voluntarily and prior to any
> transmission, s/he has no "ownership" entitlement once the data and
> information have been made "public" (since there can be no such valid
> contract with everyone).

Agreed.  Copyright is bad.  Any individual that consumes public data
is entitled to use that data.  It is not possible to unconsumed data.

> 8) As far as I can see then, the only way that is left to reward the
> originator of data and of information, even for the partial amount of
> which a person is capable of transferring, is the method of value for
> value - a voluntary transfer to the originator of the data and/or
> information of an amount of value equivalent to that obtained from the
> transfer by the receiver of the data and/or information.

An after-the-fact value for value transactions can be a way to reward
releasers of data.  Donations and Advertising are used to accomplish
this, however, individuals other than yourself might benefit from the
advertizing revenue since they are free to distribute your work.

A before-the-fact value for value transaction can also occur.  This is
similar to the venture capital model.  One or more people pay me to
produce and release a book or video.  It is a model that will be
implemented by this website: http://www.piratemyfilm.com/

Here is a link to a video explaining the concept:
http://maxkeiser.com/2009/04/08/stacy-blog-the-piratemyfilm-pitch-in-video-a-new\
-t-shirt-design/

> Chad, I wish to thank you for the stimulation from your words (even
> though I disagreed with them :), causing me to describe my thoughts
> about information as above in a far more complete and logical manner
> than I have ever done before.

Your welcome.

> >>> Yesterday, I completed reading your document about social meta-needs.
> >>> I found that your arguments against rights were quite compelling.
> >>>
> >> Again that's great to hear. When I submitted the Social Meta-Needs
> >> treatise to Libertarian Papers <http://www.LibertarianPapers.org> it
> >> was rejected with the remark from one "reviewer" (I put it in quotes
> >> because the speed of rejection was such that no one could have
> >> actually taken time to study it in detail) that the paper was "just
> >> providing a slightly new and modish vocabulary for the same things
> >> that we all accept".
> >>
> > Have you sent any of your papers to Walter Block?  I am curious as to
> > how he would respond.  He seems willing to consider many different
> > points of view.
>
> I first heard of Walter Block when I read his book "Defending the
> Undefendable", probably a couple of years after its publication in 1976.
> I immediately thought it was great, even though I was still an
> objectivist limited governmentalist at that time. However, I also took
> exception with his designation of "hero" status to pimps, slum-lords
> and drug pushers, even though he was fully correct in defending the
> legality, and to some extent even the value, of some of their actions.
> Soon after reading the book, I and several other Toronto libertarians
> heard that Block was speaking at a libertarian event in Detroit (an
> easy drive from Toronto) and went to see him there. I happened to be
> sitting in the front row with my copy of his book on the table in
> front of me. At the beginning of his talk he needed a copy, spotted
> mine and used it. As a result my copy now contains a written note of
> thanks from him inside its front cover. So as you can see Walter Block
> was one of my earliest libertarian heroes.

He has certainly influenced me during the past 2-3 years.

> Fast forward to Fall 2002.
> I and Kitty attended the Freedom Summit in Phoenix -
> http://freedomsummit.com (my first winter at our home in AZ, after
> having my entry ban to the US lifted). Part of the reason for attending
> was that Walter Block was the after dinner speaker. Another major part
> of the reason was that George H Smith was also speaking (another one of
> my libertarian heroes for many years and at that time). What happened to
> my connection with Smith is documented in the dialog section of SelfSIP
> and even more and worse since has not been documented but is available
> to be seen on the Internet.

I do not know much about George H Smith.

> Anyway, getting back to Block, naturally I was looking forward to his
> talk (which unfortunately now I cannot remember the title or subject
> matter). After it was finished, during the audience question period, I
> posed to him a question of some substance and foundational originality
> (again I cannot remember exactly what). His response was very equivocal
> and when pressed further, he simply relied on the opinion of Murray
> Rothbard as an *authority* on the subject (argument from authority).
> This single event of usage of such well-known false logic, greatly
> reduced my respect for Block. Jim Davidson (http://indomitus.net/jdbio.html)
> was sitting at our table, was a witness to the whole affair (and might
> remember the subject) and agreed that Block's response was effectively
> denigrating and evading the question.

This is disappointing.  However, it does not seem appropriate to
immediately move someone from the hero bin to the garbage bin.  It
should be recognized that radical ideas are radical because many
people have not considered them.  Everyone disagrees with another
person about something.  There does not appear to be slack in your
system human error.  I do not agree with everyone on everything.  In
fact, I expect a lack of agreement.  If I agree with someone 80% of
the time, then I will not toss them aside just because they do not
agree with me on the other 20%.  Rules for human interaction should be
flexible enough to accommodate dissimilarity between human actors.

> Walter Block is also one of the editors of Libertarian Papers, and could
> well be one of those who peremptorily dismissed my submission. Yes, I
> guess that I should send it to him anyway, but I have little confidence
> that he would actually read it and think about it seriously, so I have
> not done so.

I would encourage you to devise a plan that results in Walter Block
reading and seriously reviewing all of your papers.  As opposed to
assuming that it will not work.  Half-hearted efforts lead to
half-hearted results.  One way may be to pay him.  Value for value
typically gets my attention.  Of course you shouldn't offer cash
unless he declines the "review for free" option.  I "believe" that he
is on sabbatical right now meaning that he may have some extra time.

> I chose instead to ask Jan Narveson, one of the other
> Libertarian Papers editors who I have also met and talked with, to
> review it. He did tell me he had not seen it because he was so busy
> at the time, but that it looked interesting and that he would take a
> look at it when he was finished his editing of a book for publication.
> But so far he has not and a reminder to him a few weeks ago went
> unanswered. I have now decided that I will send it out to several more
> people (including Block) because there is little loss in doing so and
> if I don't send it then the response is automatically null.

Great!

> > On a separate note: I have forwarded some of your links to a couple
> > people who may be interested.
>
> Good. I look forward to hearing about any response that you get.

Only received a response from one person.  His response was that he
did not like the way the website looked and that he thought this
project was similar to that of the tower of Babel.  This surprised me
since I pegged this individual as more open-minded and less lazy.  I
made three attempts to get him to read the Social Meta-Needs document.

> >>> What struck me as more surprising, however, was that you are seeking
> >>> to put the ideas of liberty into practise.
> >>>
> >> I have always been both a theoretician and practical person in many
> >> diverse areas. I don't agree that there is any dichotomy between
> >> theory and practice. If some theory is not practical then it simply is
> >> not a valid theory (one that is true of reality).

I agree with and also possess the desire to put theory to the test.

[Meta
I have belatedly and retroactively changed the entire following dialog,
and few other similar remarks later on, to Meta status.
/Meta --Paul]

> Meta
> Chad, It is one of my requirements of dialog, that my respondent make
> a response to everything of substance that I state. If one does not do
> this, I take it as a kind of insult, equivalent to totally ignoring
> something of substance that I have stated during an in-person
> conversation. And I will not continue discussion for long with someone
> who continues to ignore things that I say or write. Furthermore even
> if you assure me that you always read and take in all of my responses,
> without some kind of response text I have no way to know the level of
> your understanding of it.
>
> So please respond to everything only if to say that you agree or
> disagree, but do not currently have either the time or sufficient deep
> thinking about the subject to give  reasons for your agreement or
> disagreement (particularly if the latter).

I understand your concern to a certain level and will make an effort
to address all responses.  As far as insults are concerned please be
cautious about inferring insults.  If I intend to insult you I will
make it very clear by stating, "The following is intended to insult
you" this would then be followed by clear and unambiguous insults that
attack both the message and the messenger.  Be advised that I do not
toss insults around lightly.  I also make an effort to understand the
other individual even though a certain action or lack thereof may on
the surface seem insulting.  I expect the same from you.

[Meta
My usage of "I take it as a *kind of* insult" (emphasis added) was
meant to signify both that the act of not responding to a substantive
remark had a negative effect on me similar to that of an insult and
that the effect was unintended. I guess that I should have used the
longer phrase "I take it as a kind of unintended insult" to make that
dual purpose clearer.
OTOH, perhaps the word "insult" is always too "hot" and I would have
been better to say: "I see it as discourteous".
OTOH-2, once a person fully understands Social Meta-Needs and its NSC
and Social Preferencing implementations, s/he will realize that
intentions bear no relationship to harm. Unfortunately, because my
creation has had such a revolutionary change on my own thinking, I
often have trouble remembering how I must deal with others who are not
yet so changed./Meta --Paul]


Another factor involved in missing responses is that the inline
comment form provided by Yahoo is very difficult to use.  The forum
interface provided at mises.org is years ahead of the text-based caret
system.  I will make an effort to remedy this by reducing the number
of subjects discussed in a particular post.

[Chad, As I have advised several others and they have found it to be
far better, the best way to operate with Yahoo groups is either to
respond at the group web interface, or far better still, get a mail
reader on your computer (I use and recommend Thunderbird) to which you
get your Yahoo group messages sent (individually, since the group
traffic is very light) and then use the reply function in the email
reader. This will ensure that the formatting of the message as
received by us in the queue is also optimal - something that is not
true now and we have to do a little cleanup to each of your messages
before releasing it. --Paul]

>/Meta

> >>> I too am developing a plan to do the exact same thing in (to my
> >>> pleasant surprise) a similar way.
> >>> I have various materials that I can share with you if you are interested.
> >>>
> >> Yes, I would like to know everything about it. There are far too many
> >> people going off independently in all sorts of directions, and with
> >> most people in current society not knowing how to evaluate, this
> >> greatly weakens the possibility of any one way to attract sufficient
> >> others to get anywhere.
>
> Meta
> Again you did not respond, although in this case your response to my
> text below could be seen as also a response to the above.

Correct my response is below.

> /Meta

> >>> My plan is to launch a web site by the end of the year that
> >>> facilitates Social Preferencing.
> >>>
> >> I also want to know precisely what you mean by the phrase "facilitates

See the link below.

> >> Social Preferencing" and how your plans will do that. I sincerely hope
> >> that we can merge our plans into one effort.
> >
> > This post is a good introduction to what I am interested in doing.  It
> > is the how that I am still working on:
> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2036
>
> And I have now responded to that message about your plans, as much of
> them as I understand. Most definitely the details of the "how" will
> require a lot of deep thinking and major design/programming efforts.
>
> > It should be pointed out that this is only one facet of the plan.  This
> > sort of system will enable the connection of likeminded individuals
> > which of course is only the beginning.  Physical communities (not just
> > online communities) could be formed anywhere that humans exist that
> > follow a specific formula (still to be developed).  Liberated
> > communities will be as ubiquitous as fast food restaurants once the plan
> > blossoms.
>
> As I stated in the other message, I have a major problem with such
> physical communities within the current statist societies. They are far
> too easy targets for those in power to destroy. The US is not a free
> country any longer (if it ever was one) wherein those doing no harm to
> others are allowed to live as they want to. The only way that a large
> liberty oriented movement will be able to survive and to successfully
> undermine and replace any current society is for it to remain highly
> decentralized and totally dispersed/immersed within the current
> population, essentially succeeding from the current society as much as
> possible. Besides which, such immersion is a far better way to persuade
> others in society of the validity of one's ideas, and thereby to
> greatly abandon using the methods of the current society.

The plan may take a century to implement.  Ultimately physical
communities need to grow out of the system or all the talk about
putting theory into practice is meaningless.  Agree that the initial
strategy should be to establish connections online.  The true test of
this system is whether it can be incrementally reclaim liberty and
freedom for the individuals using it.

> >>> Would you be interested participating in an online meeting with me
> >>> to determine whether it would be beneficial for us to work together?
> >>>
> >> Absolutely yes! On the MoreLife group Yahoo would be best for me. All
> >> such discussion will be eventually moved to the appropriate wiki
> >> (Valu4Valu.org, OpenLives.net, SelfSIP.org or MoreLife.org) when they
> >> are ready, in order to get more visibility.

Comments about the websites:  The wikis appear to be unpopulated.
SelfSIP.org is difficult and confusing to navigate and piece together.
There are many links that are remote and difficult to access.

The other issue is that encountering these ideas is like being dropped
naked into Antarctica.  I've been working on a system that attempts to
gentle expose individuals to the implications of their views as a
means of encouraging them to voluntarily change their ideology.

> Again you failed to respond to the above and several more text items below.
>
> >>> I am most interested in learning more about the following two
> >>> items listed on your site:
> >>>
> >>> * Outline of the Program of Implementation [in progress]
> >>>
> >> I have written small items about this in several places, but have not
> >> done any comprehensive work, since so far no one has really understood
> >> my work, agreed with it (or got me to change it to be more correct)
> >> and joined me to promote it. As I always state, before one starts to
> >> implement a plan to attain a certain goal (a newly organized society,
> >> in this case) one first needs to know that and how such a goal will be
> >> beneficial (before one begins a journey one needs to know the
> >> destination). Therefore, talk about implementation is a little ways
> >> off, IMO.

I very much agree that a plan is important.  I am working on such a
plan with an eye toward sustainability.  The plan goal has two parts
outreach to the uninitiated and a support system for practitioners.
The details of the plan are still under development, and I will reveal
more details in the future.

>Nevertheless I do have many ideas already formulated.

I would like to talk about these ideas.

> Meta
> Again no response. Please do so.
>/Meta
>
> >>> * Self-Sovereign Personal Database Website [planned]
> >>>
> >> This is already begun as the wiki http://OpenLives.net

It is unclear how the wiki will be used.  Also, the wiki appears to be empty.

> Meta
> Please respond.
> /Meta
>
> >>> *My Skills:*
> >>> Engineering
> >>> Web Programming
> >>> Enthusiasm
> >>>
> >> Interesting, These match mine and Kitty's quite well. We are both
> >> Engineering graduates (among other academic areas). I have been
> >> involved with computers off and on for over 35 years. And under the
> >> right circumstances we both have lots of energy and enthusiasm.

Maybe the key is that engineers tend to enjoy solving problems as opposed to
simply identifying them and proposing solutions.  Mises.org does a good job of
exposing individuals to problems and offering solution.  However, it has done
little for me as far as providing a system for implementation.  One can say that
societal system X would be ideal, but offering no mechanism by which individuals
can migrate to system X from their current system leaves a person unsatisfied. 
Statements like if everyone thought Y then system X could be implemented offers
only an objective.  An objective with no means of achievement is referred to as
impotence.  I want to develop a method for changing the way people think.

> Meta
> Please respond.
> /Meta
>
> >>> *My Vision:*
> >>> Create a system that permits liberty to flourish anywhere in the universe.
> >>>
> >> Same here. But not only liberty - more importantly, maximum possible
> >> freedom (in the sense of available actions).
> >>
> > I see.  That is something that I did not directly have in mind, but
> > expanding the boundaries on available actions makes sense.
>
> Liberty per se, cannot increase Lifetime Happiness. Only available
> actions that are chosen and acted upon can do that. Liberty is only
> valuable as a *means* to aid the creation of more available actions
> that can then be chosen and acted upon with the intention of increasing
> one's lifetime happiness.
>
> >> See the definitions of
> >> Liberty and Freedom in the Natural Social Contract
> >> <http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html> and their annotations to
> >> understand the difference between Freedom and Liberty (the latter is
> >> merely a prerequisite for maximal Freedom).
> >>
> > I have not yet read those two documents.  I am currently in the process
> > of writing a review of the paper about "Social Meta-Needs" there are a
> > few spots where my understanding needs to be expanded.
>
> Such "expansion" would likely occur if you read all the rest of
> SelfSIP.org. It is all a coherent and related whole, no part of which
> can stand entirely alone and each part of which will elucidate and
> illuminate the other parts. That is why everything is so intensively
> hyperlinked. Nevertheless, doing a review of each part, with some open
> questions, is still an excellent way to organize your study of the total.

Portions of the review will be released soon.

> >>> *Location:*
> >>> Winchester, VA
> >>> 703-881-3199
> >>>
> >>> P.S. Where are you located?
> >>>
> >> Unfortunately you are not close to either of our residences:
> >> May to October inclusive: Harcourt Park Ontario Canada - my legal
> >> residence as a Canadian citizen
> >> November to April inclusive: Casa Grande Arizona USA - Kitty's legal
> >> residence as a US citizen
> >
> > I was just in Arizona.  While their I visited the Mago Retreat in
> > Sedona: http://www.sedonamagoretreat.org/ .
>
> [Sedona is a truly beautiful area of Arizona - and there a lots of
> them. I took a number of photos of a hike in 2 locales back on April 2
> 2006 - http://morelife.org/personal/photos2006/photos_49.html
> Unfortunately in the last ~25 years Sedona has become a very expensive
> place to live and even visit. I first visited it briefly with my
> former husband Ed and our then very young son Andy in probably 1977 -
> it was just a sleepy town with a lot of nice scenery *and* a river
> that actually had running water in it all the time, not like the dry
> washes in the desert that only run when there is a real downpour. **Kitty]

I see.

> > The reason that I mention this here is that the Energy Yoga practised
> > their has helped me to be a better and happier person.  Disclaimer: The
> > "scientific research" portion of the organization is neither science nor
> > research.  If you can look beyond that, and watch your wallet (though
> > I've found that the value received is typically comensurate with the
> > cost) you might find it interesting.
>
> Yes, I and Kitty are familiar with some of the benefits to be obtained
> from yoga (some of which does have scientific backing), although we are
> not familiar with exactly what "Energy Yoga" constitutes. Such benefits
> can also be obtained from other activities - particularly for the
> psychological benefits much better, far more lasting and with far less
> cost than formal classes.

Agree that activity and exercise is important.

> [Certain kinds of purposeful body movements are very conducive to
> relaxation as well as improvement in flexibility, balance and
> strength. Tai-chi is another one that has received a lot of study. But
> so is dance like ballet and I am sure that many individuals can relate
> their own experiences with various activities. The slow ones with
> periods of stillness where remaining posed is not or no longer
> stressful seem to be more likely to allow the participant to mentally
> focus on something other than the immediate activity itself and
> therefore have potential for longterm relaxation. OTOH doing a
> physical activity that is outside one's usual activities can enable a
> person to temporarily detach from tasks that are not mentally
> rewarding and, even if those are enjoyed, provide a challenge of sorts.
> For us, we find that purposeful physical activities - lots of manual
> wood cutting and chopping for the past several weeks here in Harcourt
> Park ON - is the best form of exercise. And it definitely gives one a
> sense of accomplishment when looking at those split logs...;>) When it
> gets warmer next month I expect to be out wet scrubbing - mostly with
> a long handled brush - our dock, deck and back porch to get the small
> amount of (returning) algae off. This method eliminates the use of
> chemicals (that can get into the lake) and provides lots of physical
> activity. Then those green-free cedar planks will look nice and have
> no tendency towards slipperiness when wet.
> Paul plans to get back to finishing the roof scrubbing, a task he only
> partially completed in the Fall of 2007 and did not have time for last
> year - see
> http://morelife.org/personal/photos2007/photos_61.html about 2/3 down
> the page.

Looks like a lot of good work.

> Chad, specifically in regard to being a "better and happier person",
> if you are not already well familiar the cognitive behavioral model
> (theory), you might find the books _Feeling Good Handbook_ by David D
> Burns and _Mind Over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You
> Think_ by Greenberger & Pedasky of particular value - even if you are
> pleased with yourself now. There is reference to these books and a
> couple others on CBT on the MoreLife Practice Index under Outlook -
> http://morelife.org/practiceindex.html. There have also been some
> previous interesting threads here at the group that include discussion
> of CBT and the books. **Kitty]

I will add these to my long list of things to read.

> Meta
> Chad,
> Please try to be more careful with your use of "their" versus "there".
> It is always important to reread your writings for meaning, grammar
> and typos before you send them off.
> /Meta

I do re-read my responses, but being human I do not catch everything.

> >> We sometimes visit people in between during our bi-yearly migration,
> >> but we have rarely been to VA and we refuse to fly, the airport
> >> regulations situation being as it is.
>
> This is one that did not really need a response, except to perhaps
> comment on the no-fly decision, so strongly expressed.

If I am ever headed to Canada or Arizona I will make an effort to see
if we can meet.

> >>> Chad
> >>> www.downsizedc.org <http://www.downsizedc.org/>
> >>>
> >> Kitty could not find any sign of you on that web site. How are you
> >> related to downsizedc.org?
> >>
> > I am a member of downsizedc.org.  I donate money to them, and send
> > emails to my "Representatives".  Professional politics is not the
> > answer, however, laying a tree in front of the steamroller helps to buy
> > time.
>
> While the latter is most certainly true, there are far too many people
> occupying all their free time with "laying such trees" (although
> relative to the size and power of government it is more like laying a
> few tiny branches in front of a steam roller).

Agreed.  Every person should be aware of the impact of their actions
and attempt to weigh the opportunity cost carefully.

> --Paul


Chad Nelson

On 06/18/2009 07:41 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> Stability Requirement
> "[S]uch increase [in Lifetime Happiness] also will be most easily
> achieved within an Environment that is very stable or at most undergoes
> relatively small Changes of certain Parameters in a cyclical or
> otherwise predictable manner." [1]  The reviewer agrees that a stable,
> predictable environment will best increase the Lifetime Happiness of the
> individuals located inside.

Meta
The above should read "I agree that a stable ... ". Anything else is a
subterfuge.
/Meta

> The question, therefore, becomes what
> possible solutions exist for achieving such an environment?  Put another
> way, any solution that purports to increase the Lifetime Happiness must
> establish a measurable stability criteria.  Yes, the goal is to
> constantly increase stability, but there is a cut-off point as we
> asymptotically approach one hundred percent stability where we say
> this level is "good enough".  A measurable stability criteria is an
> amalgamation of various factors e.g. harm / unit time, environmental
> fluctuations / unit time, various human system fluctuations / unit
> time, etc.  Human system fluctuations are related to the physical and
> non-physical attributes of the human under obeservation.  Also worth
> pointing out is that short-term and long-term stability can be
> considered once such metrics are defined.

Meta
Once again a "we" can't do anything! Only individuals think, choose and
act. In particular "we" do not "asymptotically approach one hundred
percent stability", although perhaps a Society as a whole does that
according to some appropriate measure and system-wide process. In
addition, there is no "we" to say that "this level is "good enough"".
There are only individuals making individual evaluated choices and
thereby setting the stability level of their self-ordered society.
/Meta

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

> Achieving Stability
> Once stability is clearly understood, methods need to be devised for
> achieving and maintaining stability within the framework of the
> "Social Meta-Needs". [1]

It appears that you missed the whole point of a self-ordering society
without  any external or top-down ordering authorities and
institutions. Think of it like the self-ordering homeostasis of a
lifeform or of a simple pendulum or of the solar system. No one tells
these systems how to behave. They automatically regulate themselves to
keep a certain level of stability. Yet too much stability is sometimes
harmful. You may not realize that one of the signs of heart disease is
that the heart beat is too rhythmical. You are still thinking like a
socialist planner who knows better how society works than does the
system of society itself as a response solely to the voluntary rational
actions of all its members. Are you perhaps a closet Technocrat? -
http://en.technocracynet.eu/

--Paul

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

On 06/18/2009 07:32 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> "While there are some organic structures on the edge of life that
> contain in themselves only the third and fourth Attributes (reproduction
> and responsiveness or adaptability - the latter only genetically), it is
> clear that all of these life Attributes are true for humans as well as
> all multicellular plants and animals." [1]  Robots and computer programs
> are beginning to achieve many of these attributes through human
> ingenuity.

When a robot, computer program or other non-human lifeform is
recommended by a Freeman and Executes the Natural Social Contract then
he/she/it will become a Freeman.

--Paul

On 06/18/2009 07:30 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> "It is argued that the Social Meta-Needs require that the only
> reasonable justice ethic is the complete restoration of a Victim to
> the State of Happiness in which he would have been if the Violation
> had not occurred, with the amount and type of Restitution Required
> being determined solely by the Victim." [1]

The above sentence is taken from the abstract of the Social Meta-Needs
treatise. An abstract is, by definition, not a full exposition of the
meaning of what is written therein, of its description or of the
arguments of reasoning which imply the stated conclusions. Abstracts are
therefore *never* subject to content critique (except as to consistency
with the main article), but are only subject to meta-critique. An
abstract of a theory should be seen as a summary like "first tell them
what you are going to tell them". Nevertheless, since I assume that you
did not know that and innocently made the error, I will address your
remarks about the above abstract sentence. However, in future please
quote full text within the body of the writing that you are critiquing.

> "[C]omplete restoration of a Victim to the State of Happiness in which
> he would have been if the Violation had not occurred" [1] is humanly
> impossible due to the contingent nature of human beings.

I never implied or intimated that it was ever fully possible. I
specifically stated that it was the "only reasonable justice *ethic*"
(emphasis added here). An ethic is a goal to aim for, one to get as
close to as possible, not necessarily anything that can ever be fully
achieved. Similarly with "optimally increasing Lifetime Happiness" - it
is the goal of life, not something that can fully be realized, not only
because of contingencies (to use your word, mine is "chance"), but also
because of the simple errors that imperfect humans must necessarily
sometimes make.

> It is
> impossible to divine the outcome of an action that was not taken.

Is this being written for my benefit? - perhaps because I show signs of
not knowing such an obvious thing? (If so please show me where.) Or are
you writing to explain to others? Your statement is certainly not a
critique of my words, since it is not directed to where I describe and
reason in detail about what I have very briefly stated in the abstract
is my intention in the following full text.
But more fundamentally your statement is meaningless, since an action
not taken was first not an action at all and second can have no outcome.

> Omniscience is required for ideal justice.

This statement is neither meaningful nor any critique of my work. I
never use the phrase "ideal justice" because of its essentially
meaningless nature. A major reason why I would never use such a
statement is related to my disagreement that there is any possibility
of something being "true in theory but not in practice". As I have
written many times before, that statement is a cop-out for one who
cannot find the correct theory that *is* fully practical. If something
cannot be put into practice then it must necessarily be invalid for
reality.

> Of course, we can
> approximate this to some extent through the use of imagination and
> past experience.

Meta
You have used an undefined "we" above. Please read my essay
"Collectivism in Language: Its Effects on Valid Reasoning" at:
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html to see why this should not be
done. In particularly the "we" above must be replaced by a singular,
either "a person" or "one", because only individual humans are capable
of imagining and learning (from past experience).
/Meta

Approximate what? "Omniscience" or "ideal justice"? In either case,
since these are impossible and/or meaningless, one has nothing to aim
one's approximation at. Rather in order to achieve the Social Meta-Needs
as fully as possible what one must attempt to do is to get as close as
possible to "the complete restoration of a Victim to the State of
Happiness in which he would have been if the Violation had not
occurred". Note carefully the difference here. That state is not some
nebulous thing called "ideal justice". it is the fully possible state
that did not occur, but would have occurred if the Violation had not
altered the course of reality. (Think of it as having occurred in an
alternate parallel universe where the Violation did not occur.) Yes,
once again it is granted that this also is impossible to fully determine
because of chance. So the Victim does the best that s/he can to fairly
determine it and takes hir chances about how hir determination will be
viewed by all others who will socially preference for or against hir
accordingly.

> It is agreed that complete restoration is an example
> of pure justice.

Since I never used the phrase "pure justice", and would not, you are
agreeing with something that I never said.

> If we allow "the amount and type of Restitution Required [to be]
> determined solely by the Victim" [1], then we require individuals that
> are not only capable of the omniscience discussed earlier but also
> absolutely honest.

Meta
Again you have used an undefined "we" (twice). There is no "we" (or
even "I", "s/he" or "it" for that matter) to "allow" or "require"
anything of others. There are only human individuals voluntarily
executing the NSC to become Freemen voluntarily interacting with one
another in accord with the agreed to clauses of the NSC and the
methods of Social Preferencing.
/Meta

You did not "discuss" omniscience earlier, you merely mentioned it. Any
actual attempt to define and discuss it would disclose that it is a
meaningless term (not possible in reality) and should not be use in
rational discourse.

> Without absolute honesty individuals might seek to
> make an example out of the perpetrator or may, being filled with a
> spirit of vengeance, require some unreasonable payment for a minor
> infraction.

I am not going to address the above because it is already addressed in
the section "Determination of the Amount of Violation" -
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html#ref44

> Every individual performs some action during the day that
> could be construed as harmful to another individual.

It is clear that you have not yet read the definition of "Responsible
Harm" (in the NSC) which is the only kind of harm that is restitutable.
Once again you are first inappropriately critiquing an abstract and
second ignoring my statements that no part of the SelfSIP project is
meant to stand alone. The changes in thinking required are far, far
too great for them to all be made and complete in any one essay.

> A person might
> walk across a section of private property damaging only the blades of
> grass that are trampled under foot, yet under this systems it seems
> that the property owner could make the perpetrator his servant for
> life.

Social preferencing will prevent such actions by effectively making
life impossible for anyone who does any such thing.

>  Concepts like Quid Pro Quo [7], "compensation ratio" [8], or
> "two teeth for a tooth + scaring + expenses"

And just who is to determine the "compensation ratio" or other "Quid
Pro Quo"? Again this is all explained but you have not read it. Also see
my critique of one of the first (and most famous to libertarians over
45) writers noting some problems with libertarian approaches at:
http://selfsip.org/dialogues/dfriedman/index.html

> (see Walter Block's
> Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of
> Statism [9]

If Walter Block is saying that being a Statist is a criminal act then
he is making a major philosophical mistake. It is only the enforcers
of Statism that are guilty of "crimes" because it is only they who are
initiating force. This can most easily seen by imagining all the
enforcers to be non-existent and noting that the rest of all government
officials had no power left, unless they themselves became enforcers.
In any case for a libertarian market anarchist to even use the word
"crime" is totally inappropriate since what is and is not a crime is
by definition the total province of the State.

> and Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian
> Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Parts I & II [10])

It is only the enforcers of governments (which are unjust by definition)
that one needs to be concerned with. But you cannot "deal" with
enforcers, you can only marginalize and eventually eliminate them by
attrition. Social preferencing can have a major role to play in making
that happen.

> seem more appealing, in that, their exists a limit.  Limits and
> Boundaries are required in human interactions.

It is my contention that the "limits and boundaries" of human
interactions can be fully arbitrated by the combination of the NSC and
Social Preferencing. Please read all that (including NSC annotations)
and then tell me why you think it will not work.

Meta
Snipped references and the pretentious "reviewer" sigline.
/meta

--Paul

On 06/18/2009 07:14 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> Summary:
> Agree that the concept "Rights" is flawed and requires hacks and
> exceptions to ensure consistency.

Your description "requires hacks and exceptions to ensure consistency"
is flawed thinking. I think that perhaps this is because you do not
really understand the meaning of logical consistency. (This is not an
insult to your intelligence, since few people do fully understand that
meaning). Achieving logical consistency is not like putting correction
factors into a theoretically derived equation to make it better fit
some practical situation in the real world. The "required hacks and
exceptions" in rights theories are often redefinitions and
reinterpretations which cause the meaning of "rights" in one place to
be logically inconsistent with its meaning in another. Moreover, it is
logically impossible to make the fundamentally inconsistent become
somehow consistent. Why not courageously and forthrightly call a spade
a spade and agree that the "rights" approach is fundamentally and
irretrievably inconsistent?

> Social Meta-Needs seem like a
> reasonable attempt at replacing "Rights".

But it does much more than merely replace the mistaken idea of rights.
Again logically this must be so because one cannot replace *all* of
something that is inconsistent without the replacement in turn being
inconsistent. One can only introduce something that is consistent to
take over *some* of what was attempting to be done by the old
inconsistent approach. The rest of what is introduced must necessarily
be new and different than any part of the old inconsistent approach.
However, social Meta-Needs goes even further and attempts to be both a
consistent and complete system. (Complete means that no additional
independent principles are possible.)

> In firm agreement with 80% of the content, but need more clarification
> about the concepts of harm, social preferencing, self-defense, and life
> time happiness.  Clarification is required since some of these concepts
> did not appear to account for human contingency, and while the goal is
> of course to maximize Lifetime Happiness for all humans it must also be
> clarified that human never possess enough information to develop the
> "most" optimal solution.

I never said that any human action would *be* optimal, only that such
is the intention. If you don't at least have the intention then you
surely will never get that result. If you do have the intention then
as you learn from the methods of trial and error (sometimes called
"the school of hard knocks") you will get closer and closer to your
intention. Chad, I think that you have not yet read the annotations
wherein this is covered. For example, see
http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotations/happiness.html
where chance effect on Lifetime Happiness calculation is discussed in
Section 2 para 2.

> On the other hand, individuals can develop
> optimized solutions based on past experience coupled with assumptions
> about repeatability.

Except that I don't agree with the expression "assumptions about
repeatability". One should never base anything merely on repeatability,
but rather on the science which predicts the apparent current
repeatability. Only by doing so will one be ready for the time when a
phenomenon does not repeat - as every phenomenon is bound to eventually
do. My point is that one should base one's lifetime happiness optimizing
solutions on hard science, not on one's hopes for repeatability. The
current market meltdown has shown the folly of pure repeatability
based thinking.

> The point is simply that any system designed to
> optimize the value gained during the course of human life and human
> "InterAction"[1] must not require that humans possess the attributes of
> omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, eternal life, shape shifting,
> infinite wisdom, etc.

I have never said anything that remotely suggests that humans should or
can ever have any of these "characteristics" (except for one), which
are all (again except for one) logically inconsistent with reality,
and I have specifically stated the contrary in many places. The only
exception is that without effectively unbounded lifespans, I could find
no logically inescapable solution to the problem of a Violator being
able to benefit from a given Violation in the case that s/he alone has
done it, by avoiding the potential cost of hir Violation. This is
thoroughly discussed in the section of the Social Meta-Needs treatise
entitled "The Compossibility of Ethical Egoism" (direct link:
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html#ref23 )
Unbounded lifespan for humans (as distinguished from immortality or
"eternal life") is not contrary to reality and is a distinct possibility
if science and technology keep expanding.

--Paul

On 06/17/2009 07:03 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> Disclaimer: The following review is highly critical of the example of
> Social Preferencing provided on the site.  The intention is not to
> insult, but to inform the reader.  It should also be noted that I am
> not using an incremental approach, in that, I believe that Kitty and
> Paul Wakfer are mature enough to be able to handle what is intended to
> be constructive criticism.
>
> The indiscriminate use of strong Social Preferencing results in the
> alienation of individuals that may have otherwise been receptive to
> your ideas.

It appears that you have totally misunderstood that Kitty's examples
(and most all her writings on SelfSIP.org do not relate to the methods
of operation of the Freeman Society, which is the subject of my
writings (apart from some critiques of founding documents and the
writings of others. In other words, you are confusing the presentation
of the theory and operation of the future Freeman Society with the use
of some of those operational methods within current societies.

Kitty's examples of social preferencing are in no manner examples of
that method of operation in the Freeman Society and any problems with
the operation of her methods is solely related to the vast and rampant
irrationalism of people in the current society.

But you have also greatly misused the word "indiscriminate" both above
and in the subject line.
1) "Indiscriminate" means:
1 a (1) : not marked by discrimination : not marked by careful
distinction : not evidencing discernment </indiscriminate/ reading
habits> </indiscriminate/ viewing of television programs> <launched
/indiscriminate/ destruction>
(2) : HAPHAZARD, RANDOM, HIT-AND-MISS, SWEEPING - </indiscriminate/
application of a law> </indiscriminate/ censure>
(3) : UNRESTRAINED, PROMISCUOUS - </indiscriminate/ sexual intercourse>
b (1) : not separated into distinct parts : JUMBLED, CONFUSED - <the
babble of the crowd was an /indiscriminate/ mixture of several languages>
(2) : MOTLEY. HETEROGENEOUS - <a book filled with an /indiscriminate/
assortment of pictures>
2 : not exercising discrimination or discernment : not making careful
distinctions : not carefully choosing :
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Jun. 2009).

Neither I nor Kitty have ever before been accused of being
indiscriminate (except perhaps for Kitty when she was in mania). If
anything we have both been accused of being far too discriminating and
not tolerant and accepting enough of the diverse irrational and even
harmful actions of others.

2) I thought that I had made it clear that by social preferencing I mean
actions that either positively or negatively affect personal interaction
with another person (eg you *do* talk to this person again or you do
*not* continue to talk to hir). I would then classify social
preferencing into three degrees of strength.
a) weak social preferencing is where you simply process the interaction
decision without giving any reasons for it.
b) Medium social preferencing (or just social preferencing) is where you
give reasons for your action to the person or organization which you
are socially preferencing.
c) Strong social preferencing is where you make public the reasons for
your decision. Strong social preferencing will be crucial for the
operation of a Freeman Society, but it can also be extremely beneficial
right now in starting people to think in the right direction.

Note that none of these expressions concerning the strength of social
preferencing have any relationship to its *direction* - whether it is
positive (promotional of the person) or negative (demotional of the person).

3) Whether or not any person is alienated by whatever I have to say is
up to them. Alienation is in the mind of the alienated - the recipient
of the negative social preferencing - and it is not something that I
can directly induce in that mind. If I speak the truth and someone is
offended, then any alienation is hir psychological problem not mine.
Such alienation (and presumably return weak social preferencing against
me) simply means that I have filtered out one more person who is highly
likely to be not ultimately receptive to my ideas anyway and leaves me
free to proceed to find and spend more time with others who are more
likely to be receptive.

> It is true that an individual should not condone or
> heavily support others that hold antithetical viewpoint.

The problem here (specifically with Kitty's nephew) is not that he holds
an antithetical viewpoint (he actually never expressed any viewpoint at
all), but rather that he is aiding and abetting mass murder by the US
armed forces. I and Kitty have many people with whom we associate in
various narrow areas, who hold highly antithetical views to ours, but,
as far as we know, are not directly supporting the infliction of
violence on others.

> However,
> this does not imply that one should assume an offensive stance with
> individuals that hold a differing viewpoint.

You continue to misuse words. Nothing that we are doing can be
classified as "offensive":
1 : making attack : relating to or characterized by attack :
AGGRESSIVE : fitted for or used in attacking </offensive/ weapons>
</offensive/ maneuver> </offensive/ strength> -- opposed to /defensive/
(ibid)

There is also the more recent meaning (a distortion of the root
meaning):
3 : causing displeasure or resentment : giving offense : INSULTING,
AFFRONTING <loud, /offensive/ behavior> </offensive/ advertising>
<it's /offensive/ to a gentleman's feelings when his word isn't
believed -- Dorothy Sayers>
(ibid)

However, that is a total distortion precisely because the sender of
words cannot physically *cause* displeasure or resentment in the
receiver of the words. I and Kitty simply state what we are convinced
is true. Any "offense" is totally the result of the mental workings of
the receiver of our words.

Actually this reminds me of a person about whom I have thought for
the two decades that I have known him that we ought to be very close
friends based on the wealth of interests that we hold in common to be
highly important (cryonics, life-extension and libertarianism to name
just 3), but with whom I nevertheless never seem to have anything but
a very contentious relationship. Here is the latest example early this
year - http://cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31317 In fact, if you go
to http://cryonet.org and search with "Ben Best attack", you will find
that poor Ben is always getting "attacked" by others even though all
they are doing is using words!!

> After all, the objective
> is not to castigate them, but convert or at least neutralize them.

"Castigate": Etymology: Latin /castigatus, /past participle of
/castigare /to correct, punish -- more at CHASTEN
1 a : to punish or subdue by punishment </castigate/ thy pride --
Shakespeare>
b : to reprove for error or criticize with drastic severity <those
poems in which he /castigate//s /man's general inhumanity and lack of
sincerity -- J.G.Southworth> <not even the ablest critic can /castigate/
an artless generation into repentance and creative vigor -- A.J.Barnouw>
*synonym* see PUNISH

I presume you mean 1b even though once again that is not the root
meaning of the word nor the most accepted meaning (punish). It should
be clear from our insistence on restitution as the *only* rational
response to effectively caused harm, that neither I nor Kitty think
that punishment is ever rational. Except to each other and to
ourselves, we also rarely ever "reprove for error or criticize with
drastic severity". However, the person in contention was not making an
"error" (is aiding and abetting mass murder now to be called merely an
error?). There are major differences in kind between errors and gross
physical harms. Even so, Kitty's intention was to strongly make a
clear statement to her nephew about the effect of his actions and to
enter into a dialog about those actions. It was he who reacted to
break off any further contact.

> The dissimilar individual should not walk away angry at you.

If speaking the truth causes that to happen then so be it. It is the
best thing to happen for many reasons including those already given.
Once again, your use of "dissimilar" is totally misplaced. The
situation here did not relate merely to a matter of taste or
convention (as with wearing a bathing suit to a wedding) but rather
entailed fundamental ethics.

> One of
> the more important issues to keep in mind when developing methods
> for dealing with other individuals is the context.

You are pointing out the obvious, which I and Kitty know very well.

> Are the actors "operating in a Freeman Society", or not? [2]

This has no relevance to the use of social preferencing in the current
society as an important tool of social behavior modification.

> If the actors are
> operating outside of a Freeman Society, then the methods and rules
> of interaction should change based on the context (swimming suits
> are not appropriate for weddings).

Speaking the truth is always a correct and appropriate method of
interaction. Your metaphor about wearing bathing suits is totally
inappropriate. Strong negative Social Preferencing - the non-sanction
or non-association and the public expression of the reasons for such
actions, is a major way to stop many of the harms of the current
society and get people to think like being in a Freeman Society. Yes,
it will not likely be immediately effective to alter the behavior of
those who are being socially preferenced against. It will more likely
first promote change in others who see the example, are informed by
the method and are encouraged to use such methods. However, ultimately
the person being preferenced against will reconsider hir actions,
particularly when and if sufficient numbers take the same kinds of
negative preferencing actions with hir while s/he continues to act
similarly.

It should be noted that strong negative social preferencing is simply
the logical counterpart of the widely accepted practice of strong
positive social preferencing - the public praise, accolades,
recommendations and testimonials for individuals, and organizations of
various types, which are so often freely forthcoming from others. What
possible logic can there be for such non-acceptance of the negative
method, while the positive method is so fully accepted and used? It
appears that the adage "if you can't say anything nice then don't say
anything at all" reigns supreme in the minds of the vast majority in
current society.

Note also that virtually everyone fully accepts both strong positive
and strong negative preferencing with respect to all kinds of commercial
products and services. Again there is no logical distinction between
such methods and similar strong social preferencing relating to all
manner of attributes of individual persons. I and Kitty have made this
point before in other places, but you may not have read them yet.

> The other important consideration is the
> intellectual level of the individual.

I and Kitty socially preference, effectively on a continuous basis,
with respect to everyone whatever their intellectual level and in all
aspects of our lives. We do this by continuously evaluating everything
and everyone around us and altering our interfacing with such things
and persons as appropriate to the current evaluation. No one has time
to do such continuous evaluation consciously, so much of it is done
subconsciously by means of habits having been formed for that purpose.
I cannot conceive of any other way to act and still be honest with and
to oneself. To act otherwise is to live a lie and to be hypocritical
which cannot possibly optimally increase one's lifetime happiness.

For each of us our closest relationships are with persons with whom we
agree on the essentials - the very closest for each of us is the
other, as stated earlier. Specifically in regard to our philosophical
ideas and processes, we seek first only those people who are at a
sufficient intellectual level to understand and promote them. We fully
realize that most people will only join in when they see that it works
for others. They are the type of people to whom the adage "I will
believe it when I see it" applies.

> These comments tie in to four
> different writings discovered on your site.  Consider the following:
>
> "The strong Identification methods described and promoted on this page
> are assumed to be operating in a Freeman Society where the vast
> majority of InterActing individuals are Freemen or dependents of
> Freemen and the purpose of this Identification is both to prevent such
> Violations by ensuring that they are fully Restituted and to bring the
> discriminatory pressure of Social Preferencing to bear on other types
> of behavior that is not conducive to optimally increasing the Lifetime
> Happiness of all Freemen together." [2]

The quotation above has effectively been taken "out of context". It is
the last part of a section right at the start of the page explaining
its purpose, whose prior text reads:

"The creators of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project (Paul and Kitty
Antonik Wakfer) are well aware that some of the strong Identification
Required by the NSC and the additional Personal openness described and
promoted in this page might be unadvisable and perhaps even personally
dangerous to implement in the current social context of rampant
Violational activities particularly, and worst of all, including those
of all governments." (hyperlinks removed for text readability)

That prior text shows that the total situation, particularly including
*full personal openness*, is what I am describing as being essential
for a Freeman Society. Nothing in the text suggests that strong negative
social preferencing should not be practiced, and cannot also be highly
effective, in the current society, even though some degree of
non-openness may well be important to protect oneself from the State
and others violence perpetrators who are effectively spawned by the
State, and for that reason will be fully acceptable (ie not negatively
socially preferenced) in the current society.

> Attention should be called to the assertion that within the context
> of a Freeman Society, "the discriminatory pressure of Social
> Preferencing" [2] should be brought to bear on certain types of
> behavior.  This discriminatory pressure should be used very carefully
> outside of the context of a Freeman Society.

Remember that the first purpose of the current text on SelfSIP.org is
to theoretically found and describe the operation of the Freeman
Society. It is only Kitty's writings which are the beginning first
small steps of using some of the Freemen Society methods within the
current society in order to get people to begin thinking more
correctly and make some headway towards the achievement of the Freeman
Society - ie the "getting from here to there" part of the project. I
myself have not yet begun that portion because I have not yet had
adequate vetting of the Freeman Society theory and structure.
Nevertheless even I am tired of waiting and am working to implement
the concept of value for value, which we initially did not think was
as essential for the Freeman Society optimal operation as we now do,
and which I think can be used fruitfully within the current society to
start people thinking and acting responsibly in the right direction.

Moreover, please remember that apart from Kitty's examples of negative
social preferencing in the current society, *all* other writing about
social preferencing (both negative and positive) on SelfSIP applies to
the Freeman Society. You are mixing the two! The fact that social
preferencing has problems with its negative usage in the current
society bears no relationship to its usage in the Freeman Society
which is where it needs to be first considered in order to determine
whether and to what extent it is the crucial and practical effector of
the social order.

Moreover, I must ask you, if some form of strong negative social
preferencing is not to be used, then just how do you propose that
people be influenced sufficiently to change their thinking towards
that needed for a Freeman Society? Calmly talking to and writing for
people is simply not sufficient for most people to cause such major
changes in thinking. Strong non-violent action of all possible forms
will be absolutely necessary in many situations in order to promote
such change. Once again, I strongly urge you to read the writings of
the non-violent theoretician Gene Sharp, specifically his book series:
_The politics of Nonviolent Action_ and also the review of all such
actions in the 20th century _A Force More Powerful_ by Peter Ackerman
and Jack Duvall.

However I thank you for bringing to my attention an error of
expression on my part remaining from my previous habits of word usage.
This is the mixing up of physical force (pressure) with psychology
(the inner workings of the mind). There is no such thing as
"discriminatory *pressure*" (at least not by means of words alone).
There are only the actions of others and the voluntary choices and
actions of a person in response to those actions. I try not to use and
will not accept from others these kinds of logically invalid
expressions, and I have changed my text above, replacing "pressure"
with "influence". And of course all influence must be accompanied by
cogent clearly presented reasons or it will not be influencing. It is
only in the current society of vast numbers of other-oriented people
that the (non physically harmful) actions of others may influence one
without one knowing any reasons for them. Any rational person would,
rightly so, not be influenced without such cogent reasons no matter
how many people took the action. Although if sufficient numbers of
apparently reasonable people react in some manner, then such weight of
numbers should at least influence one to fully rethink one's action
which those many others are convinced is wrong. In addition, if large
numbers of others will simply not deal with a person because of some
behavior, then that person must reasonably reconsider hir reasons and
whether or not continuing to behave contrary to the desires of the
others will promote hir lifetime happiness.

Meta
Kitty will respond separately to some of the below when she feels like
doing so. Chad, your comments appear to portray Kitty as some kind of
unfeeling, brazen vixen, when, in fact, nothing could be further from
the truth. She is the kindest, most concerned human being that I have
ever encountered. She is also the most open, honest and unwaveringly
principled person that I have ever encountered.
/Meta

> The reason for this is demonstrated on another page that records
> email communication between Kitty and her Nephew.
> During the email communication "discriminatory
> pressure" [2] is applied outside of the context of a Freeman Society
> and the results are disappointing.  Consider the following excerpt
> from Aaron's response, "If not seeing or contacting me is some form of
> protest then you are welcome to do it. But to write such a hateful
> email out of the blue is completely uncalled for." [5] Aaron does not
> know what hit him because he is at a different level of awareness than
> Kitty and Paul.  What hit Aaron?  This message from Kitty Antonik
> Wakfer,
>
> "Aaron, you may have been wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped
> in to see you since your move to St. Louis since we drive through it
> at least 4 times yearly. It has not been an oversight or because we
> are lazy. I have purposely avoided opportunities to visit with you
> since Madison's christening in New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul
> and I been successful in timing our drive through St. Louis for Mary's
> arrival at the airport in July, we would have unavoidably been in your
> company for that time. However it was our intention not to visit her
> in your home." [4]

It makes no sense to term any of the above as the application of
"discriminatory pressure". Kitty's word are nothing but a purely
honest and open attempt to make all intentions very clear and to be
certain that nothing is misunderstood (as is so often the case in most
relationships). The rest of the message, which you do not quote, was a
patient and reasoned attempt to explain to Aaron the reasons for these
intentions. That Aaron considered the message to be "hateful" is
simply the irrational workings of his mind. Perhaps you think that
there was some close relationship between Kitty and Aaron which Kitty
was peremptorily severing without any warning. However, the truth is
that the relationship was merely the standard casual one of relatives
wherein very little of substance is ever discussed.

> The reviewer read the email message and found himself in agreement

Meta
I consider it to be an avoidance of personal responsibility technique,
and perhaps even arrogant, to refer to yourself in the third person as
"the reviewer" and I do not sanction such behavior. In future, please
use "I" when you are describing your own actions. --Paul]
/Meta

> with Kitty Antonik Wakfer's views on participation in offensive wars.

In addition, please do not use full names. Everyone here knows who
Kitty is and also who Paul is within the context of the usage. Using a
full name smacks of unfriendliness, at the least, and is inconsistent
with your previous use of first names as identifiers.

> However, the review disagrees with the apparent lack of escalation.

The escalation of what?

> This message effectively presents your nephew with an ultimatum.
> Choose me and my ideas or continue in the military.  Yikes!

Nonsense! The message that you have not quoted presents thoughts about
why being in the military is effectively aiding and abetting mass
murder (but purposefully does not use such strongly language) and
states that I and Kitty will not associate with anyone doing so.

> This form
> Social Preferencing is on its' face not palatable for most humans.

Even though given that just as strong positive forms of social
preferencing are fully accepted by most humans, it is totally
illogical not to also accept strong negative social preferencing, we
have never said that any form of negative social preferencing is
currently "palatable for most humans". That it is not is also one of
the major problems with the thinking of most humans which needs to be
changed. We have also pointed out that everyone is, in fact,
negatively socially preferencing whether or not they realize it.
Kitty's nephew negatively socially preferenced Kitty by wanting
nothing more to do with her. I have been so negatively socially
preferenced dozens of times in my life. Strangely enough most of that
negative social preferencing by others came about when I forthrightly
described to them my method of continuously evaluating everyone with
respect to our relationship and acting on that evaluation with respect
to the degree and type of association - ie when I described the
actions of socially preferencing to them. Their reaction was so
negative and distasteful of the whole idea that they usually did
something punishing to me as well as exercising social preferencing
against me (totally inconsistent with their distaste for it). In fact,
I have come to use it as a kind of filter to quickly eliminate those
people who are not capable of facing the truths of their own lives and
of acting consistently.

> One must establish a foundation and build some scaffolding before
> declaring jump to my level.  How can Aaron reach you?  You have not
> provided any assistance along the way.  It took you years to reach
> your level of awareness.  How can Aaron be expected to instantaneously
> adopt a worldview that is diametrically opposed to his current one?
> Has he actually had time to consider these ideas?  Withdrawal of
> support should be one of the LAST steps in the escalation process.

Chad, I think you are way out of place here in your comments since you
have no knowledge of the depth or shallowness of the relationship
between Kitty and her nephew. Neither Kitty nor I have any close ties
to any remaining family. I, in particular, have always felt estranged
from all of my relatives except my mother, who unfortunately died far
too young and was too strongly influenced by my father with whom I did
not agree much, and my biological daughter for awhile until I realized
that she had been effectively deceiving me about her respect for me
for about 20 years.

I leave the rest for necessary comments by Kitty in another response.

> Admittedly, Kitty Antonik Wakfer came to the conclusion that the
> initial email was inappropriate and devised "A Better Method for
> Effecting Change". [6] The first paragraph includes the sentence,
> "I've done some thinking about how my approach to my nephew Aaron, a
> pilot in the Air Force, might have been better worded and thereby
> possibly have elicited a more favorable response from him." [6]
>
> Before this sentence, however, is a more interesting statement; "At
> this time and prompted a few weeks ago by a comment from an individual
> whose opinions I (Kitty Antonik Wakfer) listen to…" [6] This is an
> excellent point.  It is worth asking this question about the
> relationship between you and your nephew as well.  Are you someone
> that your nephew listens to and respects?  If not, then it is
> important to start there.  If the person does not know or respect you
> in the first place, then what motivation would he have to change based
> on what you say?  Furthermore, what does he have to lose if he does
> not know the Kitty very well in the first place?
>
> Unfortunately, the "Incremental Approach" misses the mark much like
> the first email.  The problem begins in paragraph one:
>
> "I've been doing a lot of thinking about you lately and am deeply
> concerned. At the time you graduated from the Air Force Academy
> (1998), I considered the military only 1 of 3 valid functions of
> government, an entity I thought was necessary to a free and orderly
> society. Since then, all after meeting Paul and having many detailed
> discussions with him - concurrent with the reading of various
> anti-statist writers of the past and present - I came to the
> conclusion that governments are the cause of most of the problems of
> society. The progress that occurs and the happiness that individuals
> achieve are mainly in spite of government rules and regulations rather
> than as a result of them. The fact that most people do not recognize
> this is because they have not seriously considered how a society could
> be free and orderly without coercive law-creating entities -
> governments." [6]
>
> This paragraph alone is already too much.  Many people will reject
> this approach.  The recipient of such an unsolicited email is most
> likely not going to receive this well.  Their mind is not ready.  Ask
> yourself the following question, what would happen if the coordinator
> for the Italian Olympics Swimming team kidnapped you in the middle of
> the night and you were told that you would be competing in the 100
> meter diving competition tomorrow OR that you could go back home and
> continue living your normal life.  Which of these options are you most
> prepared to accomplish?  The excerpt above drops your nephew in the
> deep-end.
>
> Adopting an incremental approach is wise, but this approach is not
> incremental enough.

The authorship that you have given directly below is incorrect. All
writing at SelfSIP.org that is not specifically stated as written by
someone else is authored by me alone (everything that I write has
undergone suggestions, critique and editing by Kitty and vice-versa.)
See the "Authorship" section on the project entry page http://selfsip.org
where this is clearly stated. I am the theorist. Kitty writes mainly
examples which are never to be taken as replacing or being contrary to
the theory (on which we both agree). If you think that any is contrary
then please state exactly which text is contrary and give reason why
you think so.

> [2] Self-Sovereignty Solutions Social Preferencing, Author: Paul and
> Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html
>
> [4] Social Preferencing – Evaluation and Choice of Association; A
> Method for Influence, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html
>
> [5] Exchange Regarding Social Preferencing and Participation in
> Offensive Military Action, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
> http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_at.html
>
> [6] Incremental Approach – A Better Method for Effecting Change,
> Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/smallsteps.html
>
> Reviewer, Chad Nelson

Chad, you have no "position" or "authority" as reviewer. Please do not
try to aggrandize your personal comments into anything more than they
are.

--Paul

On 06/16/2009 10:18 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> [Meta
> I changed the subject because the new messages do not relate to meetup.com
> /Meta --Paul]
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2009 06:01 AM, freechad480 wrote:
>>
>>> Meetup.com does a good job of connecting groups of people together
>>> that share a common interest.
>>>
>>> However, I do not want to be around people who think like me once a
>>> month or once a week. I want to be around people who think like me
>>> 80-100% of the time.  Life is too precious to spend it with
>>> individuals that do not share similar goals, interests, values, and
>>> ideas.

Meta
snipped critique of sentence structure needing no response.
/Meta

>>> My mission is to surround myself with people that think like me or as
>>> I like to call them "kindred spirits".
>>>
>> This is a goal that I also have had all my life. However, much
>> experience and failure to realize such a goal has taught me that people
>> are so enormously unique and different from one another that the best
>> that I can hope for is to find a handful of people who are "kindred
>> spirits" wrt all the most important aspects of my thinking, and many
>> dozens, hundreds or thousands of others who are kindred spirits on only
>> one or a few of those most important aspects. Moreover, this is not such
>> a bad thing. If you were truly surrounded most of the time by people who
>> thought like you, then from where would your stimulation of novel and
>> perhaps highly important ideas come? Just because someone does not think
>> like you, does not mean that hir thinking is all bad and does not have
>> some important ideas for you to both consider and integrate into your
>> own current thinking.
>>
> Agree that diversity of opinion is important.  However, the point still
> remains that common ground is necessary.

Unfortunately "common ground" is one of those amorphous, presumptively
understood and agreeable, feel-good expressions that are among the
many platitudes of social intercourse. Those who use such expressions
(I don't, unless caught up without sufficient thought into some else's
usage) always appear to think that others attribute the same meaning
to them, totally missing the fact that such meaning is generally
highly unique to the individual and may be very different from one
individual to another.
Two ardent Catholics likely think that "common ground" is being an
adherent to Catholicism, whereas two ardent golfers likely think that
"common ground" is having golf as one's major avocation.

Since you do not define what you mean by "common ground" (just what
precisely are the "grounds" - essential ethical principles and actions
I would hope - that are in common), I cannot comment further on your
meaning.

I will merely say that there are a number of character traits that I
consider to be completely essential that a person have before I would
even consider hir to be a "kindred spirit" to me. The most important
of these is honesty with respect to all thoughts and actions. In fact,
it goes further. That personal quality is paramount in any person for
any possibility of an ongoing relationship.

> If everyone around you is a
> Jew and you are Muslim, then you might have some problems.

I always have difficulty attempting to analyze situations in which the
parties involved are fundamentally irrational. (My difficulty is
reasonable since once irrationality reigns in any area, then anything
else is possible.) However as best as I can do so, I still reject your
example as a misunderstanding of the relationship of Jews and Muslims.
As long as those around the person of Muslim faith deal with him
honestly and fairly (as they should deal with anyone) and s/he with
them, realizing that doing so will promote the lifetime happiness of
all at the same time, then it does not matter of what faith they are.
It is only because the majority of such religious adherents do not
think rationally and do not deal honestly and fairly with all other
people in their social interactions that these decades of violence
between them continue. But please this is not on the main topic of any
discussion that I wish to have, so I will not respond to any response
you make about this. In the future please do not make examples using
such irrational people. I am first of all interested in deciding
whether or not the goal society that I have described, and for which I
have set up the guidelines, will be viable and optimal for rational
people.

[I and Paul are well aware that not all Jews and all Muslims are

irrational in regards to their dealings with others who are not
adherents of the same religious faith - the degree of irrationality in
this regard may parallel the orthodoxy of the individual's religious
faith, but I do not have statistics to draw on.

There are some Jews in Israel who are adamantly against the manner in
which Palestinian citizens of Israel are treated and are also not
willing to serve in the Israeli army because of the actions in Gaza
and the West Bank. http://december18th.org/  as just one example of
many sites/articles.
There are even Israeli Jews and Palestinians who actually encourage
reasoned thinking on the political issues in that area rather than
initiate acts that are physically harmful to the "opposition" - an
example is http://www.bitterlemons.org/about/about.html
Again these are simply to illustrate that we do not live in a vacuum,
and not to encourage any discussion on these purely current event
issues. **Kitty]

>>> This mission can be
>>> accomplished by creating a website that connects people one-on-one
>>> based on the common interests and ideas.  Meetup.com does a good job
>>> of connecting one person to a group of people, but no efficient
>>> mechanism is provided to determine whether or not the individuals in
>>> the group are similar to me.  Determining similarity requires me to
>>> attend a couple meetings and get to know everyone.  This can be very
>>> time consuming.
>>>
>> Not only time consuming, but unless the meetup is related to some quite
>> fundamental interest, it is not a good filter to enable you to have any
>> much better chance to find kindred spirits than any other method of
>> meeting people. Furthermore, it is not easy to immediately get to the
>> core of the most essential things that you want to know about someone
>> else's thinking. So the process can actually take many months before
>> getting far enough to make a decision to continue or cut your losses.
>>
> Agreed.  This is something I learned about by interacting with Ron
> Paul supporters.  Basically 30% of them lean toward libertarianism in
> all areas.  The other 70% like the libertarian view on the three or
> four things that they want to be allowed to do.

This is not dissimilar to what I observed among Objectivists and
Libertarians 40 and 30 years ago respectively. (There was no
distinction made between "L" and "l" libertarians at that time to my
knowledge, though there were some who took no active interest in
politics.) A large number of people were attracted to Objectivism
because that were fundamentally egocentric SOB's who had little
concern for others, not having enough sense, of course, to realize
that concern for others, in addition to oneself, was the ultimate way
to have concern for themselves. Most people were attracted to
Libertarianism because they wanted to keep all their taxes for their
own narrow selfish interests, totally oblivious to the fact that the
major negative effects of government are the disallowance of all
manner of activities and the enormous regulatory burden that is placed
on all productive activities. Obviously I did not find such people to
be my kindred spirits. At the time I tolerated them and tried to work
with them, but now after a little time spent ascertaining if they are
fundamentally of that ilk while attempting to persuade them
differently, if they show no sign of agreement and possible change
then I make it very clear that their views are unacceptable to me and
I cease initiating interaction with them or responding to any contact
by them that do not substantially address our differences.

>>> What I really want to do is give everyone I encounter
>>> a questionnaire so that I can discover the people with which I want to
>>> interact.
>>> This one-on-one sort of solution is partially implemented on dating
>>> sites, as well as, myspace and facebook.  Yet, these sites typically
>>> focus on shallow issues like personal appearance, star signs, and what
>>> happened on American Idol last night :(.  I am designing a site that
>>> connects people based on as many features as they are willing to
>>> share.  For instance, I would like to be able to go online and find
>>> someone that wants to talk about Austrian Economics that also rides
>>> the same train as I do or works near me and likes Thai food for lunch.
>>>
>> You remind me of myself back in the days when I joined an objectivist
>> group and later worked with libertarians. Each time I thought "Here is a
>> group where I will find more people who are like me". In the end I
>> realized that almost the entire profile of human characteristics was
>> represented in people who were in such groups. This has turned out to
>> be the same no matter what groups I have dealt with. Cryonicists, life
>> extensionists, etc. My point here is that the fact that someone wants to
>> talk about Austrian Economics may lead to a narrow and even beneficial
>> relationship with you, but you would be unwise to count on such a person
>> having any other thinking in tune with yours.
>>
> This would be accommodated by the system in that more than a single
> parameter could be matched.  Personality tests, other user's reviews,
> etc. could be used to determine compatibility.

I think that you are not yet thinking sufficiently in terms of the
essentialness of certain types of personal characteristics for one to
be a kindred spirit (at least to my spirit). Your system will not only
need to match personal characteristics and interests, but it will need
to also attach weighting factors to all such. Most difficult of all
will be to ascertain the existence and moreso the esentialness within
a given person, to hir very being - of those characteristics that are
truly necessary for kindred spirit status (to you or whoever is
seeking the kindred spirit).

>> This does not mean that
>> you should not always be open to such a full relationship happening. If
>> I had not remained open to that then my email contact with Kitty (over a
>> cryonics related matter) would never have developed into by far the
>> fullest relationship with anyone that I have ever had in my life - she
>> is the only kindred spirit that I have ever had.
>>
>>> This sort of system would revolutionize the way in which relationships
>>> are established.
>>>
>> I fully agree. However, it will need a lot of work to design a
>> questionnaire that fully brings out the most important essentials of both
>> what a person is and what others are really wanting. Part of the problem
>> here is that most people do not know what it is that they really want in
>> another person. If people do not really understand the essence of their
>> own "spirit", then how can they possibly either describe that essence or
>> detect someone who also has that same essence? Your questionnaire will
>> therefore need to probe people beyond what they even know about
>> themselves. I think that I and Kitty can be of great help to you here.
>>
> Exactly!  This is part of the plan.

Not sure precisely to which part the "exactly" is in response, but I
would suggest that you start by reading the books on Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy that Kitty recommended.

[I want to emphasize that these books (and some others) present an
excellent explanation of how one's thoughts (including beliefs and
images), physical reactions, moods, behaviors and environment (past
and present) are interconnected and influence each other. **Kitty]

>>> It would also revolutionize the manner in which
>>> people choose the community in which they live.  Before looking for
>>> a place to rent I could go online to discover the locations with the
>>> greatest density of people that are similar to me.  There is no better
>>> way to live than next to kindred spirits.  Sure beats the old way of
>>> looking for a place to rent/buy without ever meeting the neighbors!
>>>
>> Your enthusiasm is great to see and I am not trying to be a spoil sport,
>> but again in my lifelong experience, people are so highly diverse that
>> real kindred spirits are very few indeed (at least with respect to my
>> kind of spirit). Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be
>> any appreciable density of them anywhere.

It needs to be made clear that we are both using the term "kindred
spirit", not in its usual general meaning, but rather for one type of
kindred spirit - someone who is a kindred spirit of either me or you.
However, even there it is not yet clear that we both have the same
type of person in mind whom we would call a "kindred spirit". Mainly
this is not clear because it it not yet clear that you and I are
kindred spirits. As Kitty just pointed out to me the (mis)use of the
expression "kindred spirits" is very similar to the (mis)use of the
word "friend". In fact, in my usage anyone who I would call a very
good friend would necessarily also be a kindred spirit and vice-versa.
Someone who remains not a kindred spirit would never be able to be a
really close friend.

I am assuming that your matching system is not intended to find people
who are thorough going statists (for example) and match them together
as "kindred spirits", even though they may be that. But rather your
matching system is intended to find people who *you* would consider to
be kindred spirits. (It occurs to me that perhaps my degree, of
similarity of essential personal characteristics before I would call
someone a friend or, more strongly, a kindred spirit, is much higher
than yours.)

Therefore, in my paragraph above, I did not mean that there do not
exist high density pools of kindred spirits in general - obviously
there do or society would not be in the mess that it is right now.
Rather I meant that there does not exist any density of people who I
would call a kindred spirit to me. I am now going to stop using this
term "kindred spirit" since it presumes a knowledge of just what are
the essentials of my spirit and without such prior knowledge is as
meaningless as the expression "common ground" without details about
the meaning of "ground" for the specific person involved.

> This may be true for us right now, but it will not be true in the
> future.  The system will change the way people think about themselves
> and the world.

I am not sure just what system you refer to here, but of course that
is the goal of the entire Self-Sovereign Individual Project.

>> In addition, for those whose
>> spirit fundamentals include not sanctioning and not accepting the
>> mandates of authority, it is most certainly not a good idea for such people
>> to be  geographically concentrated or else a Waco type event can very
>> easily occur.

Since the below response does not address the crux of my statement
above, I am emphasizing that residential concentrations of individuals
openly espousing non-authoritarian ideas and promoting the end of the
State, even by totally peaceful means, would be an easy target for
government to eradicate just as they did the Branch Davidians near
Waco Texas. (I have no agreement whatsoever with any ideas of the
Branch Davidians - I don't even know what they were. But I do agree
with their liberty to think and act as they please so long as they
were not harming others and interrelations were totally voluntary.
But, please, I do not want to get into any discussion about the Waco
event.)

> This is exactly why such a system must be embedded in a persons mind
> first.

Again I am not sure to what "system" you are referring, and I would
rather use the term "integrated" than "embedded", since the latter
implies more a form a brain-washing of rather than reasoned
understanding acquired by individuals followed by the modification of
now inconsistent emotional reactions. (See several posts to the group
about the subject of reprogramming one's emotions and a brief item at
MoreLife.org - http://morelife.org/lifequal/life_outlook/practicalideas.html )

> Throwing off the yoke of government involves modification of
> the ideas and character traits that generated this situation.

It is most important to emphasize that any such modification can only
be done by the individual for hirself and that it must be combined
with emotional modification or the result will be inconsistent and
impractical for living.

>> So the best that can and should be done, IMO, is to
>> promote such camaraderie via the Internet and to have frequent invited
>> get-togethers at rotating locations of such people.
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>
> Physical communities do not need to pose a threat to governments

In terms of many events that have taken place in the world, some even
in the US, I find this a to be very naive statement.

> (the Mises Institute has a physical location).

1) It is not a physical community where all those of like mind are
living close together.
2) Being associated with universities (via their Faculty, several of
whom are with nearby Auburn University), and having no one there in
any manner doing anything illegal, it is not likely to be a target.
However for the same reasons, it is not likely to have much practical
effect on creating a new society of self-sovereign individuals.

[Mises Institute's physical campus is described at
http://mises.org/campus.asp  It's facilities in Auburn Alabama (at an
expansion of 518 Magnolia Ave) are comprised chiefly of libraries,
offices, meeting rooms, lecture hall, retail bookstore and grounds for
the purpose of research in and dissemination of the ideas of Ludwig
von Mises, Murray Rothbard and a few others in the same tradition of
thought. There are no residential facilities for staff or its faculty
(the vast majority of which are not physically present and only a
relative few for specific events) and student attendees of
conferences, including the "Mises University" (a 1 week instructional
program in Austrian economics) - the latter makes use of private
dormitories in the area. The listing of senior and adjunct faculty
make it clear that almost without exception they are primarily
associated with other educational institutions -
http://mises.org/faculty.aspx  Recapping, the Mises Institute is not
an educational institution with a large campus of buildings containing
classrooms, offices and dormitories for a sizable number of resident
faculty and full-time students. **Kitty]

> The communities would work
> within the law to modify the law via the mechanisms currently in place
> all the while challenging individuals to modify their thinking.

To the extent that this is not self-contradictory (how can one logically
continue to sanction and accept something that one knows is totally
contrary to one's lifetime happiness), it can be done just as well
without the need for any communities of people in nearby physical
association. Besides there are already lots of organizations working
"within the law to modify the law via the mechanisms currently in
place" - eg the Cato Institute. The whole problem is that all such
organizations are all doing a very poor job of helping to change any
fundamental thinking of people, particularly with regard to
essentials. (Simply arguing and even convincing someone that less
government is good, is not a sufficient change in essential social
thinking to help in the long run). This is precisely because the
philosophical basis of such groups is flawed and cannot stand against
the constant hammerings of the philosophical nihilists.

> The
> communities may take on the form of a community organization that
> meets one or more times per week.

Far better to do it on the Internet. Written words are clearer, more
understandable, analyzable and memorable.

[Even podcasts and other video presentations are of limited value if
there is not a written transcript available on which one can
specifically comment or make a reply. The tendency to quote out of
context or incorrectly is only diminished from a live presentation if
the viewer watches the presentation several times and carefully
transcribes the spoken words (or makes use of some software to do so). **Kitty]

Podcasts appear to be a favored method for guru-type individuals who
really do not want any substantive critical analysis of their
statements.

> It might take the form of a college
> or university that tends to attract liberty and freedom minded
> individuals.  It might take 100 years, but such goals should be part
> of the plan even if they may not fully materialize in our lifetime.

All a step in the right direction, but until these attracted people
start rebelling, refusing and disobeying, it is all just so much
theory and will have no practical effect. You need to read the three
book series: _The politics of Nonviolent Action_ by Geen Sharp and the
review of all such actions in the 20th century _A Force More Powerful_
by Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall (Kitty has already mentioned these
in her writtings).

But you keep using terms like "such goals" that are not yet clearly
defined. If the "such goals" is merely the formation of communities
like "of a college or university that tends to attract liberty and
freedom minded individuals", then I do not see why it should take 100
years. Since if it does, then progress toward a society of total
liberty would be so slow that it is unlikely to even be possible
because statism will be so strong by that time (or more likely
civilization as we know it will have ended) that any chance for a
society of liberty will be gone. I am hoping that there is just enough
time left (a window of opportunity) for success, but as the years go
by with no further progress in getting my ideas understood and
accepted by others I am losing the initial great hope that I had.

--Paul

Stability Requirement
"[S]uch increase [in Lifetime Happiness] also will be most easily
achieved within an Environment that is very stable or at most undergoes
relatively small Changes of certain Parameters in a cyclical or
otherwise predictable manner." [1]  The reviewer agrees that a stable,
predictable environment will best increase the Lifetime Happiness of the
individuals located inside.  The question, therefore, becomes what
possible solutions exist for achieving such an environment?  Put another
way, any solution that purports to increase the Lifetime Happiness must
establish a measurable stability criteria.  Yes, the goal is to
constantly increase stability, but there is a cut-off point as we
asymptotically approach one hundred percent stability where we say
this level is "good enough".  A measurable stability criteria is an
amalgamation of various factors e.g. harm / unit time, environmental
fluctuations / unit time, various human system fluctuations / unit
time, etc.  Human system fluctuations are related to the physical and
non-physical attributes of the human under obeservation.  Also worth
pointing out is that short-term and long-term stability can be
considered once such metrics are defined.

Achieving Stability
Once stability is clearly understood, methods need to be devised for
achieving and maintaining stability within the framework of the
"Social Meta-Needs". [1]

[1] Social Meta-Needs*: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction, Author:
Paul Wakfer http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html

Reviewer, Chad Nelson

"While there are some organic structures on the edge of life that
contain in themselves only the third and fourth Attributes (reproduction
and responsiveness or adaptability - the latter only genetically), it is
clear that all of these life Attributes are true for humans as well as
all multicellular plants and animals." [1]  Robots and computer programs
are beginning to achieve many of these attributes through human
ingenuity.

[1] Social Meta-Needs*: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction, Author:
Paul Wakfer http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html

Reviewer, Chad Nelson

"It is argued that the Social Meta-Needs require that the only
reasonable justice ethic is the complete restoration of a Victim to
the State of Happiness in which he would have been if the Violation
had not occurred, with the amount and type of Restitution Required
being determined solely by the Victim." [1]

"[C]omplete restoration of a Victim to the State of Happiness in which
he would have been if the Violation had not occurred" [1] is humanly
impossible due to the contingent nature of human beings.  It is
impossible to divine the outcome of an action that was not taken.
Omniscience is required for ideal justice.  Of course, we can
approximate this to some extent through the use of imagination and
past experience.  It is agreed that complete restoration is an example
of pure justice.

If we allow "the amount and type of Restitution Required [to be]
determined solely by the Victim" [1], then we require individuals that
are not only capable of the omniscience discussed earlier but also
absolutely honest.  Without absolute honesty individuals might seek to
make an example out of the perpetrator or may, being filled with a
spirit of vengeance, require some unreasonable payment for a minor
infraction.  Every individual performs some action during the day that
could be construed as harmful to another individual.  A person might
walk across a section of private property damaging only the blades of
grass that are trampled under foot, yet under this systems it seems
that the property owner could make the perpetrator his servant for
life.  Concepts like Quid Pro Quo [7], "compensation ratio" [8], or
"two teeth for a tooth + scaring + expenses" (see Walter Block's
Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of
Statism [9] and Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian
Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Parts I & II [10])
seem more appealing, in that, their exists a limit.  Limits and
Boundaries are required in human interactions.

[1] Social Meta-Needs*: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction, Author:
Paul Wakfer http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html


[7] Quid pro quo, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

[8] "Compensation Ratio" Restitution vs. Block's "Two Teeth for a
Tooth" , Mises.org, Author: Stephan Kinsella and Vladislav Gluhovsky,
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010087.asp

[9] "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime
of Statism", Author: Walter Block,
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_theory-guilt-pu\
nishment-crime-statism.pdf

[10] "Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to
Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part I and Part II", Author Walter Block,
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-liberta\
rianism-rp.pdf


Reviewer, Chad Nelson

Summary:
Agree that the concept "Rights" is flawed and requires hacks and
exceptions to ensure consistency.  Social Meta-Needs seem like a
reasonable attempt at replacing "Rights".
In firm agreement with 80% of the content, but need more clarification
about the concepts of harm, social preferencing, self-defense, and life
time happiness.  Clarification is required since some of these concepts
did not appear to account for human contingency, and while the goal is
of course to maximize Lifetime Happiness for all humans it must also be
clarified that human never possess enough information to develop the
"most" optimal solution.  On the other hand, individuals can develop
optimized solutions based on past experience coupled with assumptions
about repeatability.  The point is simply that any system designed to
optimize the value gained during the course of human life and human
"InterAction"[1] must not require that humans possess the attributes of
omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, eternal life, shape shifting,
infinite wisdom, etc.


More to come...

Reviewer, Chad Nelson

Disclaimer: The following review is highly critical of the example of
Social Preferencing provided on the site.  The intention is not to
insult, but to inform the reader.  It should also be noted that I am
not using an incremental approach, in that, I believe that Kitty and
Paul Wakfer are mature enough to be able to handle what is intended to
be constructive criticism.

The indiscriminate use of strong Social Preferencing results in the
alienation of individuals that may have otherwise been receptive to
your ideas.  It is true that an individual should not condone or
heavily support others that hold antithetical viewpoint.  However,
this does not imply that one should assume an offensive stance with
individuals that hold a differing viewpoint.  After all, the objective
is not to castigate them, but convert or at least neutralize them.
The dissimilar individual should not walk away angry at you.  One of
the more important issues to keep in mind when developing methods for
dealing with other individuals is the context.  Are the actors
"operating in a Freeman Society", or not? [2] If the actors are
operating outside of a Freeman Society, then the methods and rules of
interaction should change based on the context (swimming suits are not
appropriate for weddings).  The other important consideration is the
intellectual level of the individual.  These comments tie in to four
different writings discovered on your site.  Consider the following:

"The strong Identification methods described and promoted on this page
are assumed to be operating in a Freeman Society where the vast
majority of InterActing individuals are Freemen or dependents of
Freemen and the purpose of this Identification is both to prevent such
Violations by ensuring that they are fully Restituted and to bring the
discriminatory pressure of Social Preferencing to bear on other types
of behavior that is not conducive to optimally increasing the Lifetime
Happiness of all Freemen together." [2]

Attention should be called to the assertion that within the context of
a Freeman Society, "the discriminatory pressure of Social
Preferencing" [2] should be brought to bear on certain types of
behavior.  This discriminatory pressure should be used very carefully
outside of the context of a Freeman Society.  The reason for this is
demonstrated on another page that records email communication between
Kitty and her Nephew.  During the email communication "discriminatory
pressure" [2] is applied outside of the context of a Freeman Society
and the results are disappointing.  Consider the following excerpt
from Aaron's response, "If not seeing or contacting me is some form of
protest then you are welcome to do it. But to write such a hateful
email out of the blue is completely uncalled for." [5] Aaron does not
know what hit him because he is at a different level of awareness than
Kitty and Paul.  What hit Aaron?  This message from Kitty Antonik
Wakfer,

"Aaron, you may have been wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped
in to see you since your move to St. Louis since we drive through it
at least 4 times yearly. It has not been an oversight or because we
are lazy. I have purposely avoided opportunities to visit with you
since Madison's christening in New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul
and I been successful in timing our drive through St. Louis for Mary's
arrival at the airport in July, we would have unavoidably been in your
company for that time. However it was our intention not to visit her
in your home." [4]

The reviewer read the email message and found himself in agreement
with Kitty Antonik Wakfer's views on participation in offensive wars.
However, the review disagrees with the apparent lack of escalation.
This message effectively presents your nephew with an ultimatum.
Choose me and my ideas or continue in the military.  Yikes!  This form
Social Preferencing is on its' face not palatable for most humans.
One must establish a foundation and build some scaffolding before
declaring jump to my level.  How can Aaron reach you?  You have not
provided any assistance along the way.  It took you years to reach
your level of awareness.  How can Aaron be expected to instantaneously
adopt a worldview that is diametrically opposed to his current one?
Has he actually had time to consider these ideas?  Withdrawal of
support should be one of the LAST steps in the escalation process.

Admittedly, Kitty Antonik Wakfer came to the conclusion that the
initial email was inappropriate and devised "A Better Method for
Effecting Change". [6] The first paragraph includes the sentence,
"I've done some thinking about how my approach to my nephew Aaron, a
pilot in the Air Force, might have been better worded and thereby
possibly have elicited a more favorable response from him." [6]

Before this sentence, however, is a more interesting statement; "At
this time and prompted a few weeks ago by a comment from an individual
whose opinions I (Kitty Antonik Wakfer) listen to…" [6] This is an
excellent point.  It is worth asking this question about the
relationship between you and your nephew as well.  Are you someone
that your nephew listens to and respects?  If not, then it is
important to start there.  If the person does not know or respect you
in the first place, then what motivation would he have to change based
on what you say?  Furthermore, what does he have to lose if he does
not know the Kitty very well in the first place?

Unfortunately, the "Incremental Approach" misses the mark much like
the first email.  The problem begins in paragraph one:

"I've been doing a lot of thinking about you lately and am deeply
concerned. At the time you graduated from the Air Force Academy
(1998), I considered the military only 1 of 3 valid functions of
government, an entity I thought was necessary to a free and orderly
society. Since then, all after meeting Paul and having many detailed
discussions with him - concurrent with the reading of various
anti-statist writers of the past and present - I came to the
conclusion that governments are the cause of most of the problems of
society. The progress that occurs and the happiness that individuals
achieve are mainly in spite of government rules and regulations rather
than as a result of them. The fact that most people do not recognize
this is because they have not seriously considered how a society could
be free and orderly without coercive law-creating entities -
governments." [6]

This paragraph alone is already too much.  Many people will reject
this approach.  The recipient of such an unsolicited email is most
likely not going to receive this well.  Their mind is not ready.  Ask
yourself the following question, what would happen if the coordinator
for the Italian Olympics Swimming team kidnapped you in the middle of
the night and you were told that you would be competing in the 100
meter diving competition tomorrow OR that you could go back home and
continue living your normal life.  Which of these options are you most
prepared to accomplish?  The excerpt above drops your nephew in the
deep-end.

Adopting an incremental approach is wise, but this approach is not
incremental enough.


[2] Self-Sovereignty Solutions Social Preferencing, Author: Paul and
Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html

[4] Social Preferencing – Evaluation and Choice of Association; A
Method for Influence, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html

[5] Exchange Regarding Social Preferencing and Participation in
Offensive Military Action, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_at.html

[6] Incremental Approach – A Better Method for Effecting Change,
Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/smallsteps.html


Reviewer, Chad Nelson

[Meta
I changed the subject because the new messages do not relate to meetup.com
/Meta --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 06/10/2009 06:01 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> > Meetup.com does a good job of connecting groups of people together
> > that share a common interest.
> >
> > However, I do not want to be around people who think like me once a
> > month or once a week. I want to be around people who think like me
> > 80-100% of the time.  Life is too precious to spend it with
> > individuals that do not share similar goals, interests, values, and
> > ideas.
>
> Meta
> As I often do, particularly for those whose thoughts I value, within my
> replies I will be including comment/critiques on your writing in order
> that you may hone it to be clearer to all readers.
>
> In the paragraph above the meaning of the first two sentences was not
> clear until it could be inferred from the third (last) sentence. Your
> intended meaning that was not clear was whether the clauses "once a
> month or once a week", in the first sentence, and "80-100% of the
> time", in the second sentence, (both clearly verb modifier clauses)
> are supposed to modify "be around" or "think like me". The general
> rule in English is to put the modifier clause directly after the noun
> or verb that it modifies, if there is any chance of confusion.
> However, in the above sentences the object of the sentence, "people"
> both needs to come first and also needs to have its own modifying
> clause, "who think like me". This is a situation that therefore
> requires a reconstruction of the sentence to make it clear. It
> would have also helped to insert "only" in the first sentence before
> "once a month". Here is my rewrite:
>
> "However, I do not want to be around similar thinking people to me only
> once a month or even only once a week. I want to be around those kind
> of people 80-100% of the time."
>
> Note that the reason why this modification works to make the intended
> meaning clearer is because there is now only one verb, "be around",
> for the modifier clauses to relate to.
> /Meta

Thanks for adding clarity.

> > My mission is to surround myself with people that think like me or as
> > I like to call them "kindred spirits".
>
> This is a goal that I also have had all my life. However, much
> experience and failure to realize such a goal has taught me that people
> are so enormously unique and different from one another that the best
> that I can hope for is to find a handful of people who are "kindred
> spirits" wrt all the most important aspects of my thinking, and many
> dozens, hundreds or thousands of others who are kindred spirits on only
> one or a few of those most important aspects. Moreover, this is not such
> a bad thing. If you were truly surrounded most of the time by people who
> thought like you, then from where would your stimulation of novel and
> perhaps highly important ideas come? Just because someone does not think
> like you, does not mean that hir thinking is all bad and does not have
> some important ideas for you to both consider and integrate into your
> own current thinking.

Agree that diversity of opinion is important.  However, the point still
remains that common ground is necessary.  If everyone around you is a
Jew and you are Muslim, then you might have some problems.

> > This mission can be
> > accomplished by creating a website that connects people one-on-one
> > based on the common interests and ideas.  Meetup.com does a good job
> > of connecting one person to a group of people, but no efficient
> > mechanism is provided to determine whether or not the individuals in
> > the group are similar to me.  Determining similarity requires me to
> > attend a couple meetings and get to know everyone.  This can be very
> > time consuming.
>
> Not only time consuming, but unless the meetup is related to some quite
> fundamental interest, it is not a good filter to enable you to have any
> much better chance to find kindred spirits than any other method of
> meeting people. Furthermore, it is not easy to immediately get to the
> core of the most essential things that you want to know about someone
> else's thinking. So the process can actually take many months before
> getting far enough to make a decision to continue or cut your losses.

Agreed.  This is something I learned about by interacting with Ron
Paul supporters.  Basically 30% of them lean toward libertarianism in
all areas.  The other 70% like the libertarian view on the three or
four things that they want to be allowed to do.

> > What I really want to do is give everyone I encounter
> > a questionnaire so that I can discover the people with which I want to
> > interact.
> > This one-on-one sort of solution is partially implemented on dating
> > sites, as well as, myspace and facebook.  Yet, these sites typically
> > focus on shallow issues like personal appearance, star signs, and what
> > happened on American Idol last night :(.  I am designing a site that
> > connects people based on as many features as they are willing to
> > share.  For instance, I would like to be able to go online and find
> > someone that wants to talk about Austrian Economics that also rides
> > the same train as I do or works near me and likes Thai food for lunch.
>
> You remind me of myself back in the days when I joined an objectivist
> group and later worked with libertarians. Each time I thought "Here is a
> group where I will find more people who are like me". In the end I
> realized that almost the entire profile of human characteristics was
> represented in people who were in such groups. This has turned out to
> be the same no matter what groups I have dealt with. Cryonicists, life
> extensionists, etc. My point here is that the fact that someone wants to
> talk about Austrian Economics may lead to a narrow and even beneficial
> relationship with you, but you would be unwise to count on such a person
> having any other thinking in tune with yours.

This would be accommodated by the system in that more than a single
parameter could be matched.  Personality tests, other user's reviews,
etc. could be used to determine compatibility.

>This does not mean that
> you should not always be open to such a full relationship happening. If
> I had not remained open to that then my email contact with Kitty (over a
> cryonics related matter) would never have developed into by far the
> fullest relationship with anyone that I have ever had in my life - she
> is the only kindred spirit that I have ever had.
>
> > This sort of system would revolutionize the way in which relationships
> > are established.
>
> I fully agree. However, it will need a lot of work to design a
> questionnaire that fully brings out the most important essentials of both
> what a person is and what others are really wanting. Part of the problem
> here is that most people do not know what it is that they really want in
> another person. If people do not really understand the essence of their
> own "spirit", then how can they possibly either describe that essence or
> detect someone who also has that same essence? Your questionnaire will
> therefore need to probe people beyond what they even know about
> themselves. I think that I and Kitty can be of great help to you here.

Exactly!  This is part of the plan.

> > It would also revolutionize the manner in which
> > people choose the community in which they live.  Before looking for
> > a place to rent I could go online to discover the locations with the
> > greatest density of people that are similar to me.  There is no better
> > way to live than next to kindred spirits.  Sure beats the old way of
> > looking for a place to rent/buy without ever meeting the neighbors!
>
> Your enthusiasm is great to see and I am not trying to be a spoil sport,
> but again in my lifelong experience, people are so highly diverse that
> real kindred spirits are very few indeed (at least with respect to my
> kind of spirit). Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be
> any appreciable density of them anywhere.

This may be true for us right now, but it will not be true in the
future.  The system will change the way people think about themselves
and the world.

> In addition, for those whose
> spirit fundamentals include not sanctioning and not accepting the
> mandates of authority, it is most certainly not a good idea for such people
> to be  geographically concentrated or else a Waco type event can very
> easily occur.

This is exactly why such a system must be embedded in a persons mind
first.  Throwing off the yoke of government involves modification of
the ideas and character traits that generated this situation.

>So the best that can and should be done, IMO, is to
> promote such camaraderie via the Internet and to have frequent invited
> get-togethers at rotating locations of such people.
>
> --Paul

Physical communities do not need to pose a threat to governments (the
Mises Institute has a physical location).  The communities would work
within the law to modify the law via the mechanisms currently in place
all the while challenging individuals to modify their thinking.  The
communities may take on the form of a community organization that
meets one or more times per week.  It might take the form of a college
or university that tends to attract liberty and freedom minded
individuals.  It might take 100 years, but such goals should be part
of the plan even if they may not fully materialize in our lifetime.

Chad Nelson

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Chad, specifically in regard to being a "better and happier person",
> if you are not already well familiar the cognitive behavioral model
> (theory), you might find the books _Feeling Good Handbook_ by David D
> Burns and _Mind Over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You
> Think_ by Greenberger & Pedasky of particular value - even if you are
> pleased with yourself now. There is reference to these books and a
> couple others on CBT on the MoreLife Practice Index under Outlook -
> http://morelife.org/practiceindex.html. There have also been some
> previous interesting threads here at the group that include discussion
> of CBT and the books. **Kitty]

Hi Kitty

The last link you gave doesn't work because the dot is included in the link and
shouldn't be:
http://morelife.org/practiceindex.html

Have a nice day, you and Paul

François Rose

[Thanks, Francois, for the correction message. **Kitty]

Meta
We changed the title to be more descriptive. Better late than never.
/Meta

On 06/10/2009 01:32 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> Responses in bold below
>
> [Meta
> MoreLife Yahoo is a strictly text group because otherwise, any editing
> of messages before posting would have to be done to both the text and
> html messages (which appear in separate windows when the group is in
> html mode. For this reason bold does not work and if you want to
> signify anything special then you need to resort to the old UseNet
> method of placing "*" for bold and "_" or "\" for italics before and
> after the desired text. Also for this reason, please do not use the
> "rich text editor" at the group message entry or reply webpage since
> doing so will cause us more editing work to clean up the mess.
>
> In any case you do not need to do anything special either when using
> an email reply or when replying at the group webpages, because the
> numbers of ">"s, the blank lines between text and the "who wrote"
> lines at the top are sufficient to indicate the authors of all text
> and keep everything nicely separated.
> /Meta --Paul]
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/2009 09:43 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
>>
>>> I learned about you through one of the forum posts at www.mises.org
>>> <http://www.mises.org/> a couple months ago.
>>>
>> I think that I can guess which one, but I would like to know for sure,
>> please. And even better would be to know what about the post attracted
>> you to investigate further.
>>
> The article I was reading was: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp

That is what I thought. It was my critique of a section of Mises'
_Human Action_ Chap 2 on the principle of methodological individualism.
Unfortunately, as is so often the case with my critiques of revered
people, on sites or within circles that revere them, there has been no
response. I can only conclude from such lack of response that most
people who read it decide to simply ignore it since they cannot refute
it. Ignoring something that you don't like is a prime method of
relegating it to unimportance in the evaluation of others, no matter how
true it is. While it is true that my critique did not get posted until 2
days after the article (a simple reprint of Mises' text) because it was
long and got initially rejected by the system, clearly it did get read
by some people, you at the least.

I would still appreciate your telling me what about it attracted you
to further investigate me.

>> This information will be valuable to me
>> because I am having some difficulty attracting people who are capable
>> of understanding my ideas and are in sufficient agreement to even wish
>> to engage me in dialog about them. This is understandable since those
>> ideas are not part of any currently established and widely known social
>> model, and one of the major problems with current society is the lack
>> of truly open minded and analytical people.
>>
> Something I have found is that individuals have to discover much of this
> on their own.  You can provide a light or stretch out your hand, but
> they have to take the next step.  The individual must also be willing to
> sincerely question every principle that they have accepted as "truth".

All of this is very true and I generally always act that way in all my
education endeavors. The individual has to analyze the data, digest
the information, extract the essences and make them a part of hir brain by
integrating them with all hir other convictions.

Almost 30 years ago, I learned from Nathaniel Branden the expression
of "owning" one's ideas and emotions, which expression I greatly
valued and used for many years until reading your response and writing
this reply. I now realize that the use of the word "own" both distorts
the process of information integration into the brain/mind and worse,
confuses the status of such information with that of property to which
the concept of ownership does correctly and fully apply.

> They must also acknowledge that ideas are not Self rather they are
> Possessions.  Possessions with the unique characteristic of being
> possessible by all.

The first, "ideas are not Self rather they are possessions", is an
interesting expression that I had not seen or thought before, but I do
not agree with it. In fact, I see several problems with the approach
of these last two sentences:
1) The clear distinction between "data" and "information" should always
be made. (In fact, I think that the Natural Social Contract (NSC) may
need to be altered in order to make this clear.)
2) "Ideas" are definitely information rather than data. They are a
product of the individual human brain/mind acting on the data that it
receives from some external source.
3) For that same reason each instance of an idea is actually unique to
the person in whose brain/mind it resides. It is uniquely integrated
with all hir other knowledge and is essentially inseparable from its
integration into the whole of the mind.
4) Therefore, at best, any idea in a person's mind can only be partially
communicated to others. This is as opposed to an item of property, which
can be transferred in its entirety to another person.
5) The important social aspect of "possessions" is their ability to be
"property" - to be owned by a given person (or persons under the terms
of a contract among them). For that reason, it is important to clearly
distinguish between the concepts of "ownership", "possession" and
"control" as I have done within their definitions in the NSC.
6) Because data is possessable by more than one person, I think that it
is invalid, or at least confusing, to describe it as property (which
is not thus possessable), and this is even more the case for
information, which, as described above is unique to the individual
mind in which it resides.
7) The above analysis leads to the complete repudiation of the notion of
copyright (which was already not part of my social system). Because of
this, while the originator of data and information certainly has
contractual entitlements to that data and information given that such
contracts are concluded with the receiver voluntarily and prior to any
transmission, s/he has no "ownership" entitlement once the data and
information have been made "public" (since there can be no such valid
contract with everyone).
8) As far as I can see then, the only way that is left to reward the
originator of data and of information, even for the partial amount of
which a person is capable of transferring, is the method of value for
value - a voluntary transfer to the originator of the data and/or
information of an amount of value equivalent to that obtained from the
transfer by the receiver of the data and/or information.

Chad, I wish to thank you for the stimulation from your words (even
though I disagreed with them :), causing me to describe my thoughts
about information as above in a far more complete and logical manner
than I have ever done before.

>>> Yesterday, I completed reading your document about social meta-needs.
>>> I found that your arguments against rights were quite compelling.
>>>
>> Again that's great to hear. When I submitted the Social Meta-Needs
>> treatise to Libertarian Papers <http://www.LibertarianPapers.org> it
>> was rejected with the remark from one "reviewer" (I put it in quotes
>> because the speed of rejection was such that no one could have
>> actually taken time to study it in detail) that the paper was "just
>> providing a slightly new and modish vocabulary for the same things
>> that we all accept".
>>
> Have you sent any of your papers to Walter Block?  I am curious as to
> how he would respond.  He seems willing to consider many different
> points of view.

I first heard of Walter Block when I read his book "Defending the
Undefendable", probably a couple of years after its publication in 1976.
I immediately thought it was great, even though I was still an
objectivist limited governmentalist at that time. However, I also took
exception with his designation of "hero" status to pimps, slum-lords
and drug pushers, even though he was fully correct in defending the
legality, and to some extent even the value, of some of their actions.
Soon after reading the book, I and several other Toronto libertarians
heard that Block was speaking at a libertarian event in Detroit (an
easy drive from Toronto) and went to see him there. I happened to be
sitting in the front row with my copy of his book on the table in
front of me. At the beginning of his talk he needed a copy, spotted
mine and used it. As a result my copy now contains a written note of
thanks from him inside its front cover. So as you can see Walter Block
was one of my earliest libertarian heroes.

Fast forward to Fall 2002.
I and Kitty attended the Freedom Summit in Phoenix -
http://freedomsummit.com (my first winter at our home in AZ, after
having my entry ban to the US lifted). Part of the reason for attending
was that Walter Block was the after dinner speaker. Another major part
of the reason was that George H Smith was also speaking (another one of
my libertarian heroes for many years and at that time). What happened to
my connection with Smith is documented in the dialog section of SelfSIP
and even more and worse since has not been documented but is available
to be seen on the Internet.

Anyway, getting back to Block, naturally I was looking forward to his
talk (which unfortunately now I cannot remember the title or subject
matter). After it was finished, during the audience question period, I
posed to him a question of some substance and foundational originality
(again I cannot remember exactly what). His response was very equivocal
and when pressed further, he simply relied on the opinion of Murray
Rothbard as an *authority* on the subject (argument from authority).
This single event of usage of such well-known false logic, greatly
reduced my respect for Block. Jim Davidson (http://indomitus.net/jdbio.html)
was sitting at our table, was a witness to the whole affair (and might
remember the subject) and agreed that Block's response was effectively
denigrating and evading the question.

Walter Block is also one of the editors of Libertarian Papers, and could
well be one of those who peremptorily dismissed my submission. Yes, I
guess that I should send it to him anyway, but I have little confidence
that he would actually read it and think about it seriously, so I have
not done so. I chose instead to ask Jan Narveson, one of the other
Libertarian Papers editors who I have also met and talked with, to
review it. He did tell me he had not seen it because he was so busy
at the time, but that it looked interesting and that he would take a
look at it when he was finished his editing of a book for publication.
But so far he has not and a reminder to him a few weeks ago went
unanswered. I have now decided that I will send it out to several more
people (including Block) because there is little loss in doing so and
if I don't send it then the response is automatically null.

> On a separate note: I have forwarded some of your links to a couple
> people who may be interested.

Good. I look forward to hearing about any response that you get.

>>> What struck me as more surprising, however, was that you are seeking
>>> to put the ideas of liberty into practise.
>>>
>> I have always been both a theoretician and practical person in many
>> diverse areas. I don't agree that there is any dichotomy between
>> theory and practice. If some theory is not practical then it simply is
>> not a valid theory (one that is true of reality).

Chad, It is one of my requirements of dialog, that my respondent make
a response to everything of substance that I state. If one does not do
this, I take it as a kind of insult, equivalent to totally ignoring
something of substance that I have stated during an in-person
conversation. And I will not continue discussion for long with someone
who continues to ignore things that I say or write. Furthermore even
if you assure me that you always read and take in all of my responses,
without some kind of response text I have no way to know the level of
your understanding of it.

So please respond to everything only if to say that you agree or
disagree, but do not currently have either the time or sufficient deep
thinking about the subject to give  reasons for your agreement or
disagreement (particularly if the latter).

>>> I too am developing a plan to do the exact same thing in (to my
>>> pleasant surprise) a similar way.
>>> I have various materials that I can share with you if you are interested.
>>>
>> Yes, I would like to know everything about it. There are far too many
>> people going off independently in all sorts of directions, and with
>> most people in current society not knowing how to evaluate, this
>> greatly weakens the possibility of any one way to attract sufficient
>> others to get anywhere.

Again you did not respond, although in this case your response to my
text below could be seen as also a response to the above.

>>> My plan is to launch a web site by the end of the year that
>>> facilitates Social Preferencing.
>>>
>> I also want to know precisely what you mean by the phrase "facilitates
>> Social Preferencing" and how your plans will do that. I sincerely hope
>> that we can merge our plans into one effort.
>
> This post is a good introduction to what I am interested in doing.  It
> is the how that I am still working on:
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2036

And I have now responded to that message about your plans, as much of
them as I understand. Most definitely the details of the "how" will
require a lot of deep thinking and major design/programming efforts.

> It should be pointed out that this is only one facet of the plan.  This
> sort of system will enable the connection of likeminded individuals
> which of course is only the beginning.  Physical communities (not just
> online communities) could be formed anywhere that humans exist that
> follow a specific formula (still to be developed).  Liberated
> communities will be as ubiquitous as fast food restaurants once the plan
> blossoms.

As I stated in the other message, I have a major problem with such
physical communities within the current statist societies. They are far
too easy targets for those in power to destroy. The US is not a free
country any longer (if it ever was one) wherein those doing no harm to
others are allowed to live as they want to. The only way that a large
liberty oriented movement will be able to survive and to successfully
undermine and replace any current society is for it to remain highly
decentralized and totally dispersed/immersed within the current
population, essentially succeeding from the current society as much as
possible. Besides which, such immersion is a far better way to persuade
others in society of the validity of one's ideas, and thereby to
greatly abandon using the methods of the current society.

>>> Would you be interested participating in an online meeting with me
>>> to determine whether it would be beneficial for us to work together?
>>>
>> Absolutely yes! On the MoreLife group Yahoo would be best for me. All
>> such discussion will be eventually moved to the appropriate wiki
>> (Valu4Valu.org, OpenLives.net, SelfSIP.org or MoreLife.org) when they
>> are ready, in order to get more visibility.

Again you failed to respond to the above and several more text items below.

>>> I am most interested in learning more about the following two
>>> items listed on your site:
>>>
>>> * Outline of the Program of Implementation [in progress]
>>>
>> I have written small items about this in several places, but have not
>> done any comprehensive work, since so far no one has really understood
>> my work, agreed with it (or got me to change it to be more correct)
>> and joined me to promote it. As I always state, before one starts to
>> implement a plan to attain a certain goal (a newly organized society,
>> in this case) one first needs to know that and how such a goal will be
>> beneficial (before one begins a journey one needs to know the
>> destination). Therefore, talk about implementation is a little ways
>> off, IMO. Nevertheless I do have many ideas already formulated.

Again no response. Please do so.

>>> * Self-Sovereign Personal Database Website [planned]
>>>
>> This is already begun as the wiki http://OpenLives.net

Please respond.

>>> *My Skills:*
>>> Engineering
>>> Web Programming
>>> Enthusiasm
>>>
>> Interesting, These match mine and Kitty's quite well. We are both
>> Engineering graduates (among other academic areas). I have been
>> involved with computers off and on for over 35 years. And under the
>> right circumstances we both have lots of energy and enthusiasm.

Please respond.

>>> *My Vision:*
>>> Create a system that permits liberty to flourish anywhere in the universe.
>>>
>> Same here. But not only liberty - more importantly, maximum possible
>> freedom (in the sense of available actions).
>>
> I see.  That is something that I did not directly have in mind, but
> expanding the boundaries on available actions makes sense.

Liberty per se, cannot increase Lifetime Happiness. Only available
actions that are chosen and acted upon can do that. Liberty is only
valuable as a *means* to aid the creation of more available actions
that can then be chosen and acted upon with the intention of increasing
one's lifetime happiness.

>> See the definitions of
>> Liberty and Freedom in the Natural Social Contract
>> <http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html> and their annotations to
>> understand the difference between Freedom and Liberty (the latter is
>> merely a prerequisite for maximal Freedom).
>>
> I have not yet read those two documents.  I am currently in the process
> of writing a review of the paper about "Social Meta-Needs" there are a
> few spots where my understanding needs to be expanded.

Such "expansion" would likely occur if you read all the rest of
SelfSIP.org. It is all a coherent and related whole, no part of which
can stand entirely alone and each part of which will elucidate and
illuminate the other parts. That is why everything is so intensively
hyperlinked. Nevertheless, doing a review of each part, with some open
questions, is still an excellent way to organize your study of the total.

>>> *Location:*
>>> Winchester, VA
>>> 703-881-3199
>>>
>>> P.S. Where are you located?
>>>
>> Unfortunately you are not close to either of our residences:
>> May to October inclusive: Harcourt Park Ontario Canada - my legal
>> residence as a Canadian citizen
>> November to April inclusive: Casa Grande Arizona USA - Kitty's legal
>> residence as a US citizen
>
> I was just in Arizona.  While their I visited the Mago Retreat in
> Sedona: http://www.sedonamagoretreat.org/ .

[Sedona is a truly beautiful area of Arizona - and there a lots of
them. I took a number of photos of a hike in 2 locales back on April 2
2006 - http://morelife.org/personal/photos2006/photos_49.html
Unfortunately in the last ~25 years Sedona has become a very expensive
place to live and even visit. I first visited it briefly with my
former husband Ed and our then very young son Andy in probably 1977 -
it was just a sleepy town with a lot of nice scenery *and* a river
that actually had running water in it all the time, not like the dry
washes in the desert that only run when there is a real downpour. **Kitty]

> The reason that I mention this here is that the Energy Yoga practised
> their has helped me to be a better and happier person.  Disclaimer: The
> "scientific research" portion of the organization is neither science nor
> research.  If you can look beyond that, and watch your wallet (though
> I've found that the value received is typically comensurate with the
> cost) you might find it interesting.

Yes, I and Kitty are familiar with some of the benefits to be obtained
from yoga (some of which does have scientific backing), although we are
not familiar with exactly what "Energy Yoga" constitutes. Such benefits
can also be obtained from other activities - particularly for the
psychological benefits much better, far more lasting and with far less
cost than formal classes.

[Certain kinds of purposeful body movements are very conducive to
relaxation as well as improvement in flexibility, balance and
strength. Tai-chi is another one that has received a lot of study. But
so is dance like ballet and I am sure that many individuals can relate
their own experiences with various activities. The slow ones with
periods of stillness where remaining posed is not or no longer
stressful seem to be more likely to allow the participant to mentally
focus on something other than the immediate activity itself and
therefore have potential for longterm relaxation. OTOH doing a
physical activity that is outside one's usual activities can enable a
person to temporarily detach from tasks that are not mentally
rewarding and, even if those are enjoyed, provide a challenge of sorts.
For us, we find that purposeful physical activities - lots of manual
wood cutting and chopping for the past several weeks here in Harcourt
Park ON - is the best form of exercise. And it definitely gives one a
sense of accomplishment when looking at those split logs...;>) When it
gets warmer next month I expect to be out wet scrubbing - mostly with
a long handled brush - our dock, deck and back porch to get the small
amount of (returning) algae off. This method eliminates the use of
chemicals (that can get into the lake) and provides lots of physical
activity. Then those green-free cedar planks will look nice and have
no tendency towards slipperiness when wet.
Paul plans to get back to finishing the roof scrubbing, a task he only
partially completed in the Fall of 2007 and did not have time for last
year - see
http://morelife.org/personal/photos2007/photos_61.html about 2/3 down
the page.

Chad, specifically in regard to being a "better and happier person",
if you are not already well familiar the cognitive behavioral model
(theory), you might find the books _Feeling Good Handbook_ by David D
Burns and _Mind Over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You
Think_ by Greenberger & Pedasky of particular value - even if you are
pleased with yourself now. There is reference to these books and a
couple others on CBT on the MoreLife Practice Index under Outlook -
http://morelife.org/practiceindex.html. There have also been some
previous interesting threads here at the group that include discussion
of CBT and the books. **Kitty]

Meta
Chad,
Please try to be more careful with your use of "their" versus "there".
It is always important to reread your writings for meaning, grammar
and typos before you send them off.
/Meta

>> We sometimes visit people in between during our bi-yearly migration,
>> but we have rarely been to VA and we refuse to fly, the airport
>> regulations situation being as it is.

This is one that did not really need a response, except to perhaps
comment on the no-fly decision, so strongly expressed.

>>> Chad
>>> www.downsizedc.org <http://www.downsizedc.org/>
>>>
>> Kitty could not find any sign of you on that web site. How are you
>> related to downsizedc.org?
>>
> I am a member of downsizedc.org.  I donate money to them, and send
> emails to my "Representatives".  Professional politics is not the
> answer, however, laying a tree in front of the steamroller helps to buy
> time.

While the latter is most certainly true, there are far too many people
occupying all their free time with "laying such trees" (although
relative to the size and power of government it is more like laying a
few tiny branches in front of a steam roller).

--Paul

On 06/10/2009 06:01 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> Meetup.com does a good job of connecting groups of people together
> that share a common interest.
>
> However, I do not want to be around people who think like me once a
> month or once a week. I want to be around people who think like me
> 80-100% of the time.  Life is too precious to spend it with
> individuals that do not share similar goals, interests, values, and
> ideas.

Meta
As I often do, particularly for those whose thoughts I value, within my
replies I will be including comment/critiques on your writing in order
that you may hone it to be clearer to all readers.

In the paragraph above the meaning of the first two sentences was not
clear until it could be inferred from the third (last) sentence. Your
intended meaning that was not clear was whether the clauses "once a
month or once a week", in the first sentence, and "80-100% of the
time", in the second sentence, (both clearly verb modifier clauses)
are supposed to modify "be around" or "think like me". The general
rule in English is to put the modifier clause directly after the noun
or verb that it modifies, if there is any chance of confusion.
However, in the above sentences the object of the sentence, "people"
both needs to come first and also needs to have its own modifying
clause, "who think like me". This is a situation that therefore
requires a reconstruction of the sentence to make it clear. It
would have also helped to insert "only" in the first sentence before
"once a month". Here is my rewrite:

"However, I do not want to be around similar thinking people to me only
once a month or even only once a week. I want to be around those kind
of people 80-100% of the time."

Note that the reason why this modification works to make the intended
meaning clearer is because there is now only one verb, "be around",
for the modifier clauses to relate to.
/Meta

> My mission is to surround myself with people that think like me or as
> I like to call them "kindred spirits".

This is a goal that I also have had all my life. However, much
experience and failure to realize such a goal has taught me that people
are so enormously unique and different from one another that the best
that I can hope for is to find a handful of people who are "kindred
spirits" wrt all the most important aspects of my thinking, and many
dozens, hundreds or thousands of others who are kindred spirits on only
one or a few of those most important aspects. Moreover, this is not such
a bad thing. If you were truly surrounded most of the time by people who
thought like you, then from where would your stimulation of novel and
perhaps highly important ideas come? Just because someone does not think
like you, does not mean that hir thinking is all bad and does not have
some important ideas for you to both consider and integrate into your
own current thinking.

> This mission can be
> accomplished by creating a website that connects people one-on-one
> based on the common interests and ideas.  Meetup.com does a good job
> of connecting one person to a group of people, but no efficient
> mechanism is provided to determine whether or not the individuals in
> the group are similar to me.  Determining similarity requires me to
> attend a couple meetings and get to know everyone.  This can be very
> time consuming.

Not only time consuming, but unless the meetup is related to some quite
fundamental interest, it is not a good filter to enable you to have any
much better chance to find kindred spirits than any other method of
meeting people. Furthermore, it is not easy to immediately get to the
core of the most essential things that you want to know about someone
else's thinking. So the process can actually take many months before
getting far enough to make a decision to continue or cut your losses.

> What I really want to do is give everyone I encounter
> a questionnaire so that I can discover the people with which I want to
> interact.
> This one-on-one sort of solution is partially implemented on dating
> sites, as well as, myspace and facebook.  Yet, these sites typically
> focus on shallow issues like personal appearance, star signs, and what
> happened on American Idol last night :(.  I am designing a site that
> connects people based on as many features as they are willing to
> share.  For instance, I would like to be able to go online and find
> someone that wants to talk about Austrian Economics that also rides
> the same train as I do or works near me and likes Thai food for lunch.

You remind me of myself back in the days when I joined an objectivist
group and later worked with libertarians. Each time I thought "Here is a
group where I will find more people who are like me". In the end I
realized that almost the entire profile of human characteristics was
represented in people who were in such groups. This has turned out to
be the same no matter what groups I have dealt with. Cryonicists, life
extensionists, etc. My point here is that the fact that someone wants to
talk about Austrian Economics may lead to a narrow and even beneficial
relationship with you, but you would be unwise to count on such a person
having any other thinking in tune with yours. This does not mean that
you should not always be open to such a full relationship happening. If
I had not remained open to that then my email contact with Kitty (over a
cryonics related matter) would never have developed into by far the
fullest relationship with anyone that I have ever had in my life - she
is the only kindred spirit that I have ever had.

> This sort of system would revolutionize the way in which relationships
> are established.

I fully agree. However, it will need a lot of work to design a
questionnaire that fully brings out the most important essentials of both
what a person is and what others are really wanting. Part of the problem
here is that most people do not know what it is that they really want in
another person. If people do not really understand the essence of their
own "spirit", then how can they possibly either describe that essence or
detect someone who also has that same essence? Your questionnaire will
therefore need to probe people beyond what they even know about
themselves. I think that I and Kitty can be of great help to you here.

> It would also revolutionize the manner in which
> people choose the community in which they live.  Before looking for
> a place to rent I could go online to discover the locations with the
> greatest density of people that are similar to me.  There is no better
> way to live than next to kindred spirits.  Sure beats the old way of
> looking for a place to rent/buy without ever meeting the neighbors!


Your enthusiasm is great to see and I am not trying to be a spoil sport,
but again in my lifelong experience, people are so highly diverse that
real kindred spirits are very few indeed (at least with respect to my
kind of spirit). Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be
any appreciable density of them anywhere. In addition, for those whose
spirit fundamentals include not sanctioning and not accepting the
mandates of authority, it is most certainly not a good idea for such people
to be  geographically concentrated or else a Waco type event can very
easily occur. So the best that can and should be done, IMO, is to
promote such camaraderie via the Internet and to have frequent invited
get-togethers at rotating locations of such people.

--Paul

[Meta
I am responding to this message from the queue because it is obviously
directed to me alone and it is time sensitive.
/Meta --Paul]


I am currently developing a review of "Social Meta-Needs*:A New Basis
for Optimal Interaction" and other documents on the selfsip site
(particularly the ones pertaining to Social Preferencing).

[I am very pleased to see this happening and greatly look forward to
it. --Paul]


My concern is that the review is already longer than 7 pages, and I am
less than halfway through the process.  Should I chop it up into
manageable sections, or just post what could be a 20+ page review when
I complete the task?

Chad Nelson

[I suggest that you break it up into sections related to those in the
SMN document. In addition, your reference to "pages" suggests that you
may be using MSWord to write the review. If so please change to a more
text oriented editor, since MSword format does not copy/paste well
into Yahoo text format - even many characters do not translate. BTW, I
signed your name *again* for you. --Paul]


[Meta
Chad,
In private correspondence, I take that view that generally the
speediness of a response suggests the level of interest and enthusiasm
of the respondent in conversing with the message sender and I expect
that you take this view also. Therefore, so that there is no
misunderstanding between us, I want you to know the reason why I have
not yet replied to your two other messages.
The reason is that some time ago I voluntarily decided (and announced
it as new policy) that I and Kitty would not respond to any message on
the group for at least a week. The purpose of this was to let others
have a chance to respond before I and Kitty did, partly because it
appeared that I was dominating the group (and some people accused me
of this). Since this delaying of response has had virtually no effect
on increasing the responses from others, I have now retracted my
pledge to wait at least 7 days. However, I still do generally wait a
few days to see if others will say something.
/Meta --Paul]

Responses in bold below

[Meta
MoreLife Yahoo is a strictly text group because otherwise, any editing
of messages before posting would have to be done to both the text and
html messages (which appear in separate windows when the group is in
html mode. For this reason bold does not work and if you want to
signify anything special then you need to resort to the old UseNet
method of placing "*" for bold and "_" or "\" for italics before and
after the desired text. Also for this reason, please do not use the
"rich text editor" at the group message entry or reply webpage since
doing so will cause us more editing work to clean up the mess.

In any case you do not need to do anything special either when using
an email reply or when replying at the group webpages, because the
numbers of ">"s, the blank lines between text and the "who wrote"
lines at the top are sufficient to indicate the authors of all text
and keep everything nicely separated.
/Meta --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Chad,
>
> I am very pleased to get your email.
> I respond inline below to everything that you say. I am convinced that
> such inline and complete response is the hallmark of a forthright
> person who wants to be as clear and direct as possible (which
> certainly describes me and Kitty). I therefore require this kind of
> response method from all correspondents (at least after the first few
> rounds of dialog and after it has been explained to the person), or I
> simply social preference against that person by refusing to continue
> dialog with hir (him/her). However, I am always open to reasoned
> argument contrary to this position. (This is stated in more detail in
> the policy files section of the Yahoo group MoreLife.)
>
> I note that you have now joined MoreLife Yahoo, so rather than respond
> to this email please wait until I have placed it on that group as a
> message and then respond there after you have fulfilled the posting
> identification requirements of the group.

Good Idea

> On 06/09/2009 09:43 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
> > I learned about you through one of the forum posts at www.mises.org
> > <http://www.mises.org/> a couple months ago.
>
> I think that I can guess which one, but I would like to know for sure,
> please. And even better would be to know what about the post attracted
> you to investigate further.

The article I was reading was: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp
<http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp>

> This information will be valuable to me
> because I am having some difficulty attracting people who are capable
> of understanding my ideas and are in sufficient agreement to even wish
> to engage me in dialog about them. This is understandable since those
> ideas are not part of any currently established and widely known social
> model, and one of the major problems with current society is the lack
> of truly open minded and analytical people.

Something I have found is that individuals have to discover much of this
on their own.  You can provide a light or stretch out your hand, but
they have to take the next step.  The individual must also be willing to
sincerely question every principle that they have accepted as "truth".
They must also acknowledge that ideas are not Self rather they are
Possessions.  Possessions with the unique characteristic of being
possessible by all.

> > Yesterday, I completed reading your document about social meta-needs.
> > I found that your arguments against rights were quite compelling.
>
> Again that's great to hear. When I submitted the Social Meta-Needs
> treatise to Libertarian Papers <http://www.LibertarianPapers.org> it
> was rejected with the remark from one "reviewer" (I put it in quotes
> because the speed of rejection was such that no one could have
> actually taken time to study it in detail) that the paper was "just
> providing a slightly new and modish vocabulary for the same things
> that we all accept".

Have you sent any of your papers to Walter Block?  I am curious as to
how he would respond.  He seems willing to consider many different
points of view.

On a separate note: I have forwarded some of your links to a couple
people who may be interested.

> > What struck me as more surprising, however, was that you are seeking
> > to put the ideas of liberty into practise.
>
> I have always been both a theoretician and practical person in many
> diverse areas. I don't agree that there is any dichotomy between
> theory and practice. If some theory is not practical then it simply is
> not a valid theory (one that is true of reality).
>
> > I too am developing a plan to do the exact same thing in (to my
> > pleasant surprise) a similar way.
> > I have various materials that I can share with you if you are interested.
>
> Yes, I would like to know everything about it. There are far too many
> people going off independently in all sorts of directions, and with
> most people in current society not knowing how to evaluate, this
> greatly weakens the possibility of any one way to attract sufficient
> others to get anywhere.
>
> > My plan is to launch a web site by the end of the year that
> > facilitates Social Preferencing.
>
> I also want to know precisely what you mean by the phrase "facilitates
> Social Preferencing" and how your plans will do that. I sincerely hope
> that we can merge our plans into one effort.

This post is a good introduction to what I am interested in doing.  It
is the how that I am still working on:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2036
<http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2036>

It should be pointed out that this is only one facet of the plan.  This
sort of system will enable the connection of likeminded individuals
which of course is only the beginning.  Physical communities (not just
online communities) could be formed anywhere that humans exist that
follow a specific formula (still to be developed).  Liberated
communities will be as ubiquitous as fast food restaurants once the plan
blossoms.

> > Would you be interested participating in an online meeting with me
> > to determine whether it would be beneficial for us to work together?
>
> Absolutely yes! On the MoreLife group Yahoo would be best for me. All
> such discussion will be eventually moved to the appropriate wiki
> (Valu4Valu.org, OpenLives.net, SelfSIP.org or MoreLife.org) when they
> are ready, in order to get more visibility.
>
> > I am most interested in learning more about the following two
> > items listed on your site:
> >
> > * Outline of the Program of Implementation [in progress]
>
> I have written small items about this in several places, but have not
> done any comprehensive work, since so far no one has really understood
> my work, agreed with it (or got me to change it to be more correct)
> and joined me to promote it. As I always state, before one starts to
> implement a plan to attain a certain goal (a newly organized society,
> in this case) one first needs to know that and how such a goal will be
> beneficial (before one begins a journey one needs to know the
> destination). Therefore, talk about implementation is a little ways
> off, IMO. Nevertheless I do have many ideas already formulated.
>
> > * Self-Sovereign Personal Database Website [planned]
>
> This is already begun as the wiki http://OpenLives.net
>
> > *My Skills:*
> > Engineering
> > Web Programming
> > Enthusiasm
>
> Interesting, These match mine and Kitty's quite well. We are both
> Engineering graduates (among other academic areas). I have been
> involved with computers off and on for over 35 years. And under the
> right circumstances we both have lots of energy and enthusiasm.
>
> > *My Vision:*
> > Create a system that permits liberty to flourish anywhere in the universe.
>
> Same here. But not only liberty - more importantly, maximum possible
> freedom (in the sense of available actions).

I see.  That is something that I did not directly have in mind, but
expanding the boundaries on available actions makes sense.

> See the definitions of
> Liberty and Freedom in the Natural Social Contract
> <http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html> and their annotations to
> understand the difference between Freedom and Liberty (the latter is
> merely a prerequisite for maximal Freedom).

I have not yet read those two documents.  I am currently in the process
of writing a review of the paper about "Social Meta-Needs" there are a
few spots where my understanding needs to be expanded.

> > *Location:*
> > Winchester, VA
> > 703-881-3199
> >
> > P.S. Where are you located?
>
> Unfortunately you are not close to either of our residences:
> May to October inclusive: Harcourt Park Ontario Canada - my legal
> residence as a Canadian citizen
> November to April inclusive: Casa Grande Arizona USA - Kitty's legal
> residence as a US citizen

I was just in Arizona.  While their I visited the Mago Retreat in
Sedona: http://www.sedonamagoretreat.org/
<http://www.sedonamagoretreat.org/> .

The reason that I mention this here is that the Energy Yoga practised
their has helped me to be a better and happier person.  Disclaimer: The
"scientific research" portion of the organization is neither science nor
research.  If you can look beyond that, and watch your wallet (though
I've found that the value received is typically comensurate with the
cost) you might find it interesting.

> We sometimes visit people in between during our bi-yearly migration,
> but we have rarely been to VA and we refuse to fly, the airport
> regulations situation being as it is.
>
>
> > Chad
> > www.downsizedc.org <http://www.downsizedc.org/>
>
> Kitty could not find any sign of you on that web site. How are you
> related to downsizedc.org?

I am a member of downsizedc.org.  I donate money to them, and send
emails to my "Representatives".  Professional politics is not the
answer, however, laying a tree in front of the steamroller helps to buy
time.

Chad Nelson

[Meta
Since your full name is not part of your email address (which is attached to
your message, however read by others), our full identity requirements mean that
you must always sign your email at the point of completion of your message text.
Therefore, I have included it here.
/Meta --Paul]

Hi Chad,

I am very pleased to get your email.
I respond inline below to everything that you say. I am convinced that
such inline and complete response is the hallmark of a forthright
person who wants to be as clear and direct as possible (which
certainly describes me and Kitty). I therefore require this kind of
response method from all correspondents (at least after the first few
rounds of dialog and after it has been explained to the person), or I
simply social preference against that person by refusing to continue
dialog with hir (him/her). However, I am always open to reasoned
argument contrary to this position. (This is stated in more detail in
the policy files section of the Yahoo group MoreLife.)

I note that you have now joined MoreLife Yahoo, so rather than respond
to this email please wait until I have placed it on that group as a
message and then respond there after you have fulfilled the posting
identification requirements of the group.

On 06/09/2009 09:43 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
> I learned about you through one of the forum posts at www.mises.org
> <http://www.mises.org/> a couple months ago.

I think that I can guess which one, but I would like to know for sure,
please. And even better would be to know what about the post attracted
you to investigate further. This information will be valuable to me
because I am having some difficulty attracting people who are capable
of understanding my ideas and are in sufficient agreement to even wish
to engage me in dialog about them. This is understandable since those
ideas are not part of any currently established and widely known social
model, and one of the major problems with current society is the lack
of truly open minded and analytical people.

> Yesterday, I completed reading your document about social meta-needs.
> I found that your arguments against rights were quite compelling.

Again that's great to hear. When I submitted the Social Meta-Needs
treatise to Libertarian Papers <http://www.LibertarianPapers.org> it
was rejected with the remark from one "reviewer" (I put it in quotes
because the speed of rejection was such that no one could have
actually taken time to study it in detail) that the paper was "just
providing a slightly new and modish vocabulary for the same things
that we all accept".

> What struck me as more surprising, however, was that you are seeking
> to put the ideas of liberty into practise.

I have always been both a theoretician and practical person in many
diverse areas. I don't agree that there is any dichotomy between
theory and practice. If some theory is not practical then it simply is
not a valid theory (one that is true of reality).

> I too am developing a plan to do the exact same thing in (to my
> pleasant surprise) a similar way.
> I have various materials that I can share with you if you are interested.

Yes, I would like to know everything about it. There are far too many
people going off independently in all sorts of directions, and with
most people in current society not knowing how to evaluate, this
greatly weakens the possibility of any one way to attract sufficient
others to get anywhere.

> My plan is to launch a web site by the end of the year that
> facilitates Social Preferencing.

I also want to know precisely what you mean by the phrase "facilitates
Social Preferencing" and how your plans will do that. I sincerely hope
that we can merge our plans into one effort.

> Would you be interested participating in an online meeting with me
> to determine whether it would be beneficial for us to work together?

Absolutely yes! On the MoreLife group Yahoo would be best for me. All
such discussion will be eventually moved to the appropriate wiki
(Valu4Valu.org, OpenLives.net, SelfSIP.org or MoreLife.org) when they
are ready, in order to get more visibility.

> I am most interested in learning more about the following two
> items listed on your site:
>
>     * Outline of the Program of Implementation [in progress]

I have written small items about this in several places, but have not
done any comprehensive work, since so far no one has really understood
my work, agreed with it (or got me to change it to be more correct)
and joined me to promote it. As I always state, before one starts to
implement a plan to attain a certain goal (a newly organized society,
in this case) one first needs to know that and how such a goal will be
beneficial (before one begins a journey one needs to know the
destination). Therefore, talk about implementation is a little ways
off, IMO. Nevertheless I do have many ideas already formulated.

>     * Self-Sovereign Personal Database Website [planned]

This is already begun as the wiki http://OpenLives.net

> *My Skills:*
> Engineering
> Web Programming
> Enthusiasm

Interesting, These match mine and Kitty's quite well. We are both
Engineering graduates (among other academic areas). I have been
involved with computers off and on for over 35 years. And under the
right circumstances we both have lots of energy and enthusiasm.

>  *My Vision:*
> Create a system that permits liberty to flourish anywhere in the universe.

Same here. But not only liberty - more importantly, maximum possible
freedom (in the sense of available actions). See the definitions of
Liberty and Freedom in the Natural Social Contract
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html>  and their annotations to
understand the difference between Freedom and Liberty (the latter is
merely a prerequisite for maximal Freedom).

> *Location:*
> Winchester, VA
> 703-881-3199
>
> P.S. Where are you located?

Unfortunately you are not close to either of our residences:
May to October inclusive: Harcourt Park Ontario Canada - my legal
residence as a Canadian citizen
November to April inclusive: Casa Grande Arizona USA  - Kitty's legal
residence as a US citizen

We sometimes visit people in between during our bi-yearly migration,
but we have rarely been to VA and we refuse to fly, the airport
regulations situation being as it is.


> Chad
> www.downsizedc.org <http://www.downsizedc.org/>

Kitty could not find any sign of you on that web site. How are you
related to downsizedc.org?


--Paul

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

Meetup.com does a good job of connecting groups of people together
that share a common interest.

However, I do not want to be around people who think like me once a
month or once a week. I want to be around people who think like me
80-100% of the time.  Life is too precious to spend it with
individuals that do not share similar goals, interests, values, and
ideas.

My mission is to surround myself with people that think like me or as
I like to call them "kindred spirits".  This mission can be
accomplished by creating a website that connects people one-on-one
based on the common interests and ideas.  Meetup.com does a good job
of connecting one person to a group of people, but no efficient
mechanism is provided to determine whether or not the individuals in
the group are similar to me.  Determining similarity requires me to
attend a couple meetings and get to know everyone.  This can be very
time consuming.  What I really want to do is give everyone I encounter
a questionnaire so that I can discover the people with which I want to
interact.
This one-on-one sort of solution is partially implemented on dating
sites, as well as, myspace and facebook.  Yet, these sites typically
focus on shallow issues like personal appearance, star signs, and what
happened on American Idol last night :(.  I am designing a site that
connects people based on as many features as they are willing to
share.  For instance, I would like to be able to go online and find
someone that wants to talk about Austrian Economics that also rides
the same train as I do or works near me and likes Thai food for lunch.


This sort of system would revolutionize the way in which relationships
are established.  It would also revolutionize the manner in which
people choose the community in which they live.  Before looking for a
place to rent I could go online to discover the locations with the
greatest density of people that are similar to me.  There is no better
way to live than next to kindred spirits.  Sure beats the old way of
looking for a place to rent/buy without ever meeting the neighbors!

Chad Nelson

Last night an upload was made to MoreLife.org. Our personal
implementation portion has my and Paul's latest parameters, some
additions to several of our dietary regimen related pages and the last
of the photos that were taken this previous Fall in Ontario. All of
these can be reached from our Personal Index page -
http://morelife.org/personal/

Additionally, the Supporting page has been updated - always a pleasure
to add to or update the Honor Role.

All items can be accessed from the MoreLife home page -
http://morelife.org

As usual, please let me know if you come across an apparent error.

**Kitty

On 05/21/2009 10:08 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> 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.

It is important to point out that even if fully verified to be true,
this reduction of the proportion of mutant (incorrectly functioning)
mtDNA would only occur in muscle cells and would only indirectly help
the human body. However, this would be an argument against my suggestion
that more muscle tissue is simply more tissue that could become
cancerous, and would be reason why it seems that cancer rarely if ever
occurs in the muscles. OTOH, my argument about the excess workload on
the rest of the body tissues to support these large muscles would still
apply.

> 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.

All stem cells, by definition, renew themselves by an asymmetric
division process in which one daughter cell is again a stem cell and the
other is at least a little specialized toward the kind of tissue that
the stem cell is supplying. However, the term "limited" is only
relative. Even stem cells are not going to be able to divide in any
truly unlimited extent. Errors in DNA replication and other types of
dysfunction will necessarily occur over time even in the daughter stem
cells.

Meta
I decided to remove the rest so that this becomes a different branch of
the thread.
My original response is still open for response directly to it.
/Meta

--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

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

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

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

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

--- 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

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, "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