Part 3 (and final segment) of my response:

]Regardless of how one enters into a structure of freedom, the messy procedure of
] living with one's fellows will reduce theory to practicality and invite exceptions.

The "practical" does not necessarily require there to be "exceptions", if and only if the structure and processes involved are sufficiently well-defined and sufficiently general to cover all real social interactions - see my Natural Social Contract and Social Preferencing structure/processes at Click to view link and try your best to find exceptions to it. I welcome this type of vetting.

] Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, there is something wrong. Such messy processes and exceptions clearly show that the essential foundational underpinnings are inconsistent and incomplete.

] Within this context, perhaps the best way to reinforce real freedom is via the above
] mentioned structures with a special emphasis on private and personal justice.

Yes, but it is first necessary to well-define, to found and to fully detail this system of "private and personal justice" (as I have at Click to view link ).

] NAP and general moral codes are surely necessary when envisioning a freer society.

Only if and when such "codes" are consistent and complete (because in tune with human reality), otherwise they are only temporarily beneficial and will eventually lead to ruination.

] But perhaps simply by living in freer, smaller (contiguous) structures, people would
] rediscover those concepts without prompting.

This is likely so - 50-60 years ago people around me appeared to have a better sense of right and wrong than they do today, even though those old ideas still contained many inconsistent and irrational notions.

] Perhaps there has been too much emphasis on the idea that theoretical freedom
] constructs can be imposed on large political entities. Perhaps it is not even
] possible.

The above is a very strange thought since 'imposed' liberty is an oxymoron and is impossible on logical grounds alone. However, I am convinced that large societies are fully capable of fostering total liberty and maximal freedom (available actions). In fact my system is founded and implemented based on the assumption that it applies to a human society of any size.

] The infrastructure of living may be the most important.

This much is definitely true, but such infrastructure must be consistent with human reality and can only be determined after the human reality is fully discovered and elucidated.
 
] Conclusion: Today, thanks in part to the internet, we understand more about the
] building blocks of freedom (or we should, anyway), about private justice,
] self-sufficiency and avoiding falling prey to Money Power's Dreamtime.

This "we" is presumably people in general (rather than SATDB), but then the statement is completely false, since unfortunately far too few people understand such things (which is why the current world's societies are in such a mess).

] We propose these concepts are just as important as the larger philosophical issues
] regarding freedom and perhaps even moreso.

Yes, they are highly important and rarely emphasized, but certainly not more important than discovering and implementing consistent and complete philosophical foundations for a society of total liberty and maximal freedom.

Closing remark:

I was pleased to see this article attempting to understand how liberty might come about and discussing some of the problems with various approaches to that goal. Even though not nearly sufficiently detailed, the article did contain many good ideas and the author(s) showed some refreshing originality.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We will not further rebut each issue you have raised as we have already dealt with two feedbacks. But we will make the following points ...

"Such messy processes and exceptions clearly show that the essential foundational underpinnings are inconsistent and incomplete."

You, like many other libertarians (if you would classify yourself that way) apparently believe a more perfect society is possible to construct. We are not so enamored of utopias and believe that a quasi-agragrian model of the sort that Thomas Jefferson supported is perhaps the best that can be hoped for. (See Switzerland for a modern example.)

You believe that even the biggest societies can live in freedom. But we think the current model of society is one that would not have come to pass without the active interference of modern elites. You seem to want people to SIGN A CONTRACT to live a certain way. But who would enforce the contract? And who would make changes to it, etc. And how long would it last upon contact with reality? Your approach strikes us as a tad rigid and shall we say ... authoritarian? ... even in its most laudable effort to initiate or increase freedom.

----

free·dom ... (Merriam Webster) ... 1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. ... 2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

----

Finally, you made the elves laugh with this statement:

"I was pleased to see this article attempting to understand how liberty might come about and discussing some of the problems with various approaches to that goal. Even though not nearly sufficiently detailed, the article did contain many good ideas and the author(s) showed some refreshing originality."

We feel we have perhaps passed some sort of midterm and thank the professor for his kind words. Generally, we too are pleased - for your response in three parts is most elaborate and we are always grateful for this sort of intricate presentation as such conversations provide far more details than a single article can, no matter how intricate.

Having said that, we do believe that we can mount an adequate defense of most if not all of the rebuttals you have made to our modest proposals and we will try to do so ASAP. There is a lot you have offered.

Finally, if you wish to write a feedback explaining in the simplest manner possible your own proposals for a freer society, if such a thing is possible, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, we will take what we can from your website. Other feedbackers who drop by here are welcome to try to explain your proposals as well. Thanks again for commenting.

Part 2 of my response:

] What we proposed - and suggest now - is that the STRUCTURES of civil (free) society
] are as important, if not moreso, than a free society's philosophical underpinnings.
] We suggested that in the right circumstances, morality and freedom philosophy issues
] would be secondary because people have a natural attraction to freedom and an
] inherent to desire to live in free or quasi-free environments; certainly people wish
] to exercise free will.

This is pure pragmatism. Yes, the "structures" of a society are important, but only if and because they are consistent implementations of the principles on which any society of full liberty and maximal freedom must necessarily be based because such principles are derivable from the nature of human beings and the reality in which they exist (from which comes the above noted "natural attraction to freedom" - actually liberty). For details see SMN - Click to view link

] Private justice, as we have suggested, would deliver various outcomes, not all of
] them consistent with, say, NAP.

This is true mainly because and to the extent that NAP is inconsistent and incomplete. More important is that any complete and consistent justice system must be based on the principle that any individual physically harming another's life, liberty and/or property must be responsible for and actually make full restitution of that harm to the one(s) harmed. (This needs more exact definitions and much detail of how it can be effected, which are available in my Natural Social Contract (NSC) - Click to view link ).

] We also suggested that private - non-state - justice, inconsistent as it is, would
] reinforce the freedoms inherent in smaller communities.

Non-State justice systems do not have to be inconsistent, and with the strong social connectivity of the Internet, small communities are no longer a practical necessity. Small communities only engendered more liberty in the past (and still somewhat) because of the natural social preferencing actions - Click to view link - which spontaneously occurred.

] In fact, the structure of smaller communities, combined with private justice might
] even obviate the necessity for focusing on freedom's theoretical underpinnings. DOING
] in this case is as important or more important than THEORIZING. Doing forges reality.

This pragmatic approach will not work because it almost always leads to expediency. Just as it is impossible to achieve a journey without first having a well-defined destination, one must have a fully-defined social system as one's goal before taking the practical steps to attain it. Yes, there will be many who have troubles understanding philosophical "underpinnings" and who will simply follow the practical processes derived from those foundations because they will appear to be correct (from many examples given) and will be seen to work for the early adopters (most of whom will need to understand the "underpinnings" of the practical processes).

] We suggested that this had taken place in the past (that seems obvious) and thus, to
] at least a limited degree, discussions about NAP and the like could be seen as
] somewhat sterile. People can actually take action - human action - to build freer,
] minarchal societies. There are known building blocks. Thomas Jefferson, the agrarian
] republican, suggested some of them during Revolutionary times. He understood freedom
] even without the formalization of NAP or the specific theology of Libertarianism
] (though admittedly he was surely a philosopher of freedom).

This is a misreading of Jefferson, who knew all the natural rights theory of John Locke and many other writers. Jefferson was the antithesis of "doing forges reality". The NAP is but a very poor attempt to be a distillation of natural rights theory (which theory is also self-contradictory - see Click to view link for details).

] We understand that leveling nostrums bring only unhappiness and eventually forms of
] genocide.

Not necessarily "genocide", but people-ocide or people-liberty-reduction is the harm, in any case.

] We understand that only human action and free markets can provide wealth and
] certainty over the long term. We understand the importance of ideas, debate and the
] forging of a freedom theology.

Based on what SATDB wrote previously, this importance is not really understood at all. And calling it a "theology" is but a type of insulting opinion without any evidence cited (this does not mean that I disagree that some philosophy of liberty ideas are somewhat like theology).

] But in focusing on such an unmoored freedom theology, perhaps people are overlooking
] structure.

This last sentence makes no sense since SATDB has been writing against the emphasis on "mooring" (attaching firmly to) the philosophy of liberty.
However, I fully agree that very few liberty writers say a sufficient amount about the "structure" and "processes" of a society of full liberty - but this is mainly because their theoretical underpinnings do not naturally produce such structure and process, because those underpinnings are not precise, consistent, complete and sufficiently detailed.

] For this reason we have suggested (based on past articles, research and feedbacks)
] that elements of a freer society include an emphasis on family, rural living, private
] - negotiated - jurisprudence and environments emphasizing people's biological
] propensity to relate to about 150 people at a time.

50 years ago, I (now age 73) would have agreed with the necessity for smaller units of society, but unfortunately that would largely negate the enormous advantages of potential interactions of all kinds with a vast number of people, similar to the advantages incurred by the increasing division and specialization of productive output. Therefore such smaller group, rural type living would greatly reduce freedom (available actions) even while at the same time possibly enabling more complete liberty. Fortunately with the advent of the super-connected Internet, if such is used optimally, this resorting to smaller social units is no longer necessary in order to achieve a naturally self-ordered society of total liberty and maximal freedom. See the NSC for details - Click to view link ).

] This does not preclude city living or in any sense diminish technological progress.
] As we stated previously, these suggestions are aspirational, not didactic.

This appears to be inconsistent with the previous statements. If smaller social units are a necessity for full liberty to reign, then logically full liberty cannot reign in big cities. SATDB seems to want to "have hir cake and eat it too".

] There is no one solution to the human dilemma.

Perhaps there is, if it is sufficiently general and sufficiently well defined and detailed in its operations.

] For this reason we also pointed out that morality was, in a sense, personal. No
] matter what morality is adopted, private justice, if it is utilized, precludes
] homogeneous solutions.

"Homogeneous solutions" are not precluded if they are sufficiently general and inclusive to cover all the highly individual human desires and actions.

] Within such a context, people will literally get away with murder. (Blood payments
] for killing might suffice, as they still do in numerous countries.)

And if the person killed and all connected to hir agree, what is wrong with such a restitutional method? How does that differ from, for example, selling one's organs to support one's loved ones?
[To be cont'd]

Reply from The Daily Bell

What we proposed - and suggest now - is that the STRUCTURES of civil (free) society are as important, if not moreso, than a free society's philosophical underpinnings …This is pure pragmatism. Yes, the "structures" of a society are important, but only if and because they are consistent implementations of the principles on which any society of full liberty and maximal freedom must necessarily be based because such principles are derivable from the nature of human beings and the reality in which they exist (from which comes the above noted "natural attraction to freedom" - actually liberty). For details see SMN -

DB: Yes, we wished to emphasize the pragmatic. That was the whole point of the article(s).

----

Private justice, as we have suggested, would deliver various outcomes, not all of them consistent with, say, NAP. …. This is true mainly because and to the extent that NAP is inconsistent and incomplete. More important is that any complete and consistent justice system must be based on the principle that any individual physically harming another's life, liberty and/or property must be responsible for and actually make full restitution of that harm to the one(s) harmed. (This needs more exact definitions and much detail of how it can be effected, which are available in my Natural Social Contract (NSC) - Click to view link ).

DB: NAP is “inconsistent and incomplete?” In other life, you might have been able to debate this with Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand. We will let them speak for it.

----

In this case is as important or more important than THEORIZING. Doing forges reality. This pragmatic approach will not work because it almost always leads to expediency. Just as it is impossible to achieve a journey without first having a well-defined destination, one must have a fully-defined social system as one's goal before taking the practical steps to attain it.

DB: Tribal man entered into a long dialogue on social contracts before commencing to hunt? No, much of human life is pragmatic. We have the deepest respect for ideas and those who create them. But the POINT of our article was pragmatic.

---

There are known building blocks. Thomas Jefferson, the agrarian republican, suggested some of them during Revolutionary times. He understood freedom even without the formalization of NAP or the specific theology of Libertarianism (though admittedly he was surely a philosopher of freedom). … This is a misreading of Jefferson, who knew all the natural rights theory of John Locke and many other writers. Jefferson was the antithesis of "doing forges reality". The NAP is but a very poor attempt to be a distillation of natural rights theory (which theory is also self-contradictory - see Click to view link for details).

DB: We never suggested that Jefferson was representative of “doing forges reality.” You are creating a straw man.

---

We understand the importance of ideas, debate and the forging of a freedom theology. … Based on what SATDB wrote previously, this importance is not really understood at all. And calling it a "theology" is but a type of insulting opinion without any evidence cited (this does not mean that I disagree that some philosophy of liberty ideas are somewhat like theology).

DB: Ha, your rebuttal seems peculiarly to agree with us.

----

But in focusing on such an unmoored freedom theology, perhaps people are overlooking structure. This last sentence makes no sense since SATDB has been writing against the emphasis on "mooring" (attaching firmly to) the philosophy of liberty. However, I fully agree that very few liberty writers say a sufficient amount about the "structure" and "processes" of a society of full liberty - but this is mainly because their theoretical underpinnings do not naturally produce such structure and process, because those underpinnings are not precise, consistent, complete and sufficiently detailed.

DB: Again, you seem to agree with us while disagreeing.

] For this reason we have suggested (based on past articles, research and feedbacks) that elements of a freer society include an emphasis on family, rural living, private - negotiated - jurisprudence and environments emphasizing people's biological propensity to relate to about 150 people at a time … 50 years ago, I (now age 73) would have agreed with the necessity for smaller units of society, but unfortunately that would largely negate the enormous advantages of potential interactions of all kinds with a vast number of people, similar to the advantages incurred by the increasing division and specialization of productive output … Fortunately with the advent of the super-connected Internet, if such is used optimally, this resorting to smaller social units is no longer necessary in order to achieve a naturally self-ordered society of total liberty and maximal freedom.

DB: We see potential in smaller group-lifestyles, Internet or no. But you sound to us like a kind of Internet Utopianist here. The pot calling the kettle black?

----

If smaller social units are a necessity for full liberty to reign, then logically full liberty cannot reign in big cities. SATDB seems to want to "have hir cake and eat it too".

DB: We were implying here flexible networks of small, interconnected communities that might evolve naturally. In fact, the Internet might facilitate such an evolution, but we think it would occur anyway. Absent tyranny and taxes it is natural.

----

There is no one solution to the human dilemma … Perhaps there is, if it is sufficiently general and sufficiently well defined and detailed in its operations.

DB: So you propose to solve the human dilemma. You are a courageous man.

----

Within such a context, people will literally get away with murder. (Blood payments for killing might suffice, as they still do in numerous countries.) … And if the person killed and all connected to hir agree, what is wrong with such a restitutional method? How does that differ from, for example, selling one's organs to support one's loved ones?

DB: Not sure of your point but there’s that “hir” again. Why someone so precise about words would want to make one up is beyond us. Aren’t there already enough to choose from?

This is part 1 of a multipart response.

On 06/29/2011, someone(s) at The Daily Bell (SATDB) wrote:

] How Real Freedom Works Part II

This article title is communication obfuscation for two (at least) reasons:

1) It is not clear whether actual "freedom" (defined as one's available actions) or "liberty" (those available actions prevented by other humans) is meant.
2) Since individuals in any society do not and never have had complete liberty, much less any large amount of the potential freedom, it is pretentious for any person(s) to think that they can state how either "works", particularly without first defining what "freedom" really is.

] We're not sure where R. Lee Wrights stands in terms of winning the nomination for
] Libertarian candidate for US president, but we found the interview to be interesting.
] It is also dealt with the issue of the non-aggression principle (NAP) that was
] discussed at length yesterday within these modest pages in an article entitled How
] Real Freedom Works. We will use Wright's interview to return to that.

The use of "we" (presumably SATDB), when those persons it designates have not been identified, is cowardly, discourteous and, for me, totally unacceptable. Internet anonymity is little different from those spam phone calls from 'card services' without any company or individual identification and it immediately raises my concerns about insincerity, dishonesty and downright fraud - the qualities of politicians.

] On a related issue, we notice how Wikipedia is continually expanding its franchise.

Wikipedia is not a "franchise" nor a franchisee of any other business, nor does it franchise other wikis. Would the writer of this article please pause long enough to choose hir (his/her) words accurately before sending them off. If that were done for all words and phrases, then these articles would be far less full of ambiguities and obfuscations.

] Now there is "WikiNews." While we enjoy the various Wikis

Enjoyment is a totally individual emotional response and cannot be attained by a "we". You could correctly write "each of us enjoys", but then you would again need to identify the "us" in order for that to be honest, sincere and meaningful. Wikis are merely a content and response management format. The content can be and is enormously diverse - some of which many people would probably not 'enjoy'.

] and find them useful, we are under no illusion as to what they really are.

Same comment as above applies to "[we] find them useful" and "we are under no illusion".

] The aggregate policy involves a meticulous refusal to cite anything but mainstream
] media sources; this virtually guarantees that on subjects sensitive to power elite
] interests, Wikis will be entirely supine.

The writer(s) appear to misunderstand just what wikis really are. They can be owned and authored by any person or group and in general have no association at all with Wikipedia. This is even true for those wikis using the MediaWiki software which is the basis for Wikipedia and its wiki family. So the comments of SATDB (and I agree with them in part) apply only to the Wikipedia family.

] This is not surprising, as we believe US Intel is directly involved with Wikipedia et. al.

"Belief" is useless and even dangerous innuendo without evidence to back it up - and then it should instead be called conviction, expressed with a certain probability of factuality.

] In any event, on issues that do not involve 9/11, the war on terror, etc.,
] information can be fairly good and this interview was interesting. We learn that
] R. Lee Wrights is Founder and editor of Click to view link, America's premier online
] libertarian newsletter.

"America's premier online libertarian newsletter" is merely an opinion and should not be stated (parroted?) without that caveat unless the writer(s) cite evidence for it.

] He was asked 10 personal and 10 policy questions. Here are some of the policy Q&A:
] WS: What necessary freedoms are currently lacking in American society?
] RW: All our freedoms are currently under attack by Democratic and Republican
] politicians who have conjured up myriads of excuses, "imaginary hobgoblins" to wage
] war on American citizens and the world. They have manipulated events to distract,
] divide and terrorize Americans into willingly sacrificing their liberty before the
] great false god of Security.

Unfortunately when anyone uses "freedom" and "liberty" as equivalent terms they only serve to obfuscate the essential concerns about both of them - see more details in my first comment above. To his credit, Wrights did toward the end of his response use the word "liberty" correctly.
More unfortunately, however, is that neither libertarian writers nor anyone else (but me, AFAIK) makes it clear that the State not only constantly infringes the liberty of those under its social control, which automatically also reduces their freedom (available actions), but that this distortion of human action and purpose prevents enormous types and amounts of freedom (available actions again) from coming into existence. IMO, a full analysis of this distortion will show that these "unseen freedoms", that never were able to exist because of liberty reducing and other socially negative actions, are far, far greater in amount and type than anyone appears to realize.

] WS: When is government necessary?
] RW Government is only necessary to protect individual life, liberty and property. The
] only just and "necessary" government is one, as James Madison said, "which
] impartially secures to every man whatever is his own."

A minimal State is a self-contradictory notion which must necessarily reach a similar end to that which has befallen the USA. For details, see my treatise: 'Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction' (SMN) - Click to view link

] WS: When is war necessary?
] RW: As C.K. Chesterton said, "The only defensible war is a war of defense." The
] libertarian principle of non-aggression does not mean you can't defend yourself. If
] the United States is attacked, we should defend ourselves using whatever force is
] necessary, and all the power at our disposal to stop the attack quickly and
] decisively. But we do not have the right to maintain an occupation force or engage in
] "nation building" in the aggressor nation.

Since SATDB has commented on this response of Wrights, I will refrain from doing so, but instead only comment on the comments of SATDB.

] Wrights cites the non-aggression principle in his last answer and points out that
] force can be used defensively in the process of observing NAP. In our discussion
] yesterday, we suggested the Libertarian emphasis on NAP was perhaps overdone.

"Overdone" is not a useful description of the problems with the NAP. "Full of holes, because not fundamental and well-defined" would be a much better general description, although that, of course, would need to be elaborated with much detail (which I am fully prepared to do, if anyone is interested).

] We also brought up the issue of personal morality.

Logically prior to any use of the term "moral" is to derive (from the nature of reality) the purpose of a human individual's life. Only in terms of that purpose can the meaning of moral action be defined and particular examples dealt with. Again for details see SMN - Click to view link
[To be cont'd]

Reply from The Daily Bell

Mr. PaulWakfer

We shall respond at length but only wish to note now that to apply a rigorous academic analysis to a journalistic essay is a little like trying to eat spaghetti with a spoon. It is not a congruous endeavor. '

We recommend people visit your website for a better understanding of what you are proposing.

Responses below ....


This article title is communication obfuscation for two (at least) reasons 1) It is not clear whether actual "freedom" (defined as one's available actions) or "liberty" (those available actions prevented by other humans) is meant. 2) Since individuals in any society do not and never have had complete liberty, much less any large amount of the potential freedom, it is pretentious for any person(s) to think that they can state how either "works", particularly without first defining what "freedom" really is.

DB: Freedom is a relative concept and means different things to different people. We would not be so presumptuous. Which is why we used the term “real.”

----

Internet anonymity is little different from those spam phone calls from 'card services' without any company or individual identification and it immediately raises my concerns about insincerity, dishonesty and downright fraud - the qualities of politicians.

DB: It is sad that you believe anonymity (which has an illustrious history of thousands of years) is “cowardly.” Samuel Johnson was not a coward, nor was Jonathan Swift or even the man who penned Shakespeare’s plays. These individuals used pen names and “we” has a lengthy history within the tradition of English literature and literature generally. You will find it used in Punch, the New Yorker and The Economist, just to name a few magazines. But it is commonly used in smaller journals as well – and of course on the Internet. It is a way of providing particular insights without focusing on the opinions of a single person.

----

Wikipedia is not a "franchise" nor a franchisee of any other business, nor does it franchise other wikis. Would the writer of this article please pause long enough to choose hir (his/her) words accurately before sending them off. If that were done for all words and phrases, then these articles would be far less full of ambiguities and obfuscations.

DB: You use the word “hir” to describe his/her and then accuse us of ambiguities? In fact we try to be precise. In this case we used the word metaphorically as a franchise implies ownership of a particular brand, recipe, etc. We did not believe it was incumbent on us to explain the use of the word-as-metaphor. Franchise can also be used generically. “The establishment of a corporation's existence.” (Free dictionary)

----

Now there is "WikiNews." While we enjoy the various Wikis Enjoyment is a totally individual emotional response and cannot be attained by a "we".
----
DB: Again, you may wish to take this point up with major mainstream publications and websites. We are merely minor practitioners of a major literary tradition.

---

Interests, Wikis will be entirely supine. The writer(s) appear to misunderstand just what wikis really are. They can be owned and authored by any person or group and in general have no association at all with Wikipedia. This is even true for those wikis using the MediaWiki software which is the basis for Wikipedia and its wiki family. So the comments of SATDB (and I agree with them in part) apply only to the Wikipedia family.

DB: We used the phrase “the Wikis.” Obviously we were referring to those that constitute Wikipedia’s universe.

----

This is not surprising, as we believe US Intel is directly involved with Wikipedia et. al. "Belief" is useless and even dangerous innuendo without evidence to back it up - and then it should instead be called conviction, expressed with a certain probability of factuality.

DB: You are pointing out to us the difference between “belief “ and “conviction” and suggesting that we choose one over the other? We are communicating a series of your points and your criticisms would be best aimed at those engaged in academic treatises of the philosophical sort.

----

"America's premier online libertarian newsletter" is merely an opinion and should not be stated (parroted?) without that caveat unless the writer(s) cite evidence for it.

DB: Were making a joke. Shall we define “irony” for you?

----

Unfortunately when anyone uses "freedom" and "liberty" as equivalent terms they only serve to obfuscate the essential concerns about both of them - see more details in my first comment above. To his credit, Wrights did toward the end of his response use the word "liberty" correctly.

DB: There are plenty of ways to define both words. There are a multitude of meanings. You have no corner on the market.

----

More unfortunately, however, is that neither libertarian writers nor anyone else (but me, AFAIK) makes it clear that the State not only constantly infringes the liberty of those under its social control, which automatically also reduces their freedom (available actions), but that this distortion of human action and purpose prevents enormous types and amounts of freedom (available actions again) from coming into existence. IMO, a full analysis of this distortion will show that these "unseen freedoms", that never were able to exist because of liberty reducing and other socially negative actions, are far, far greater in amount and type than anyone appears to realize.

DB: You are certainly a clever person, but we’ve made this point many times. Surely, others have too.

----

In our discussion yesterday, we suggested the Libertarian emphasis on NAP was perhaps overdone. “Overdone" is not a useful description of the problems with the NAP. "Full of holes, because not fundamental and well-defined" would be a much better general description, although that, of course, would need to be elaborated with much detail (which I am fully prepared to do, if anyone is interested).

DB: Overdone – focused on to the detriment of other issues. It seems to us a perfectly clear usage but not to you. And so the world turns.

----

We also brought up the issue of personal morality … Logically prior to any use of the term "moral" is to derive (from the nature of reality) the purpose of a human individual's life. Only in terms of that purpose can the meaning of moral action be defined and particular examples dealt with. Again for details see SMN - Click to view link

DB: Please take it up with Ludwig von Mises. Our discussion is predicated in part on his elaborations of “human action.”

"The PE are busily working to bring about the conditions for it by arranging to deny people their shelter, heat, and food."

The "end game" possibilities are:

a - depopulation, with us triaging each other, in a war of all, against all, fighting for basic survival in an environment of social / economic collapse brought about by destruction of common interest (mutual survival by peaceful, honest commerce) by the long term consequences of "rule by divide and conquor" as opposed to "rule of objective law"

b - A general wake up call to remind mankind (and democracy) that there are REAL limits and that democratic excesses MUST be controlled to allow those who contribute to civilization to survive, so all can survive in a division of labor civilization. This requires measurable equality and property rights and dealing harshly with predators, by law (not neccessarily wielded by any particular group, but a general defensive reaction to aggressors).

c - Stupid elites believe they can prosper forever, by creating conflict and, be immune from persoanlly facing the consequences of their actions by subverted state institutions and law.

Bear in mind that elites are not a homegenous force and, the realty must be a factional mix of a, b, c.

Siegfried,

The point you raise is something I've wondered about too.

People get a deep psychological need satisfied by societal structures that give them kinship and the assurance that troubling moral issues have been all figured out for them. The price they will pay for this psychologically, intellectually, and materially is astounding to me. The more completely the social structure defines reality for the individual, the more enduring it seems to be. Obviously, as the outcast, I must be the mentally defective one.

I think the elite have a handle on this, perhaps even subconsciously themselves (but it can't be so, can it?), having figured out how to grab the reins of authority and guiding the group for their own purposes, ever cautious not to go too far and blow the whole game up by losing the faith of their flock.

You wrap up with,

"I have the impression that something deep has to change in relation to awareness and consciousness so that every single individual (or most of them anyway) wants to live in freedom and not servitude. I do not see so far the maturity required to take this step. The damage we have inflicted upon ourselves is huge. It's not that they sold democracy, it's that we bought it!"

A profound summation indeed, nicely put. We all have a natural inclination to want to live the least strenuous and stressful existence we can. Seems that as long as people have shelter, heat, food, sex, and drama, they are unwilling to be bothered about much else, and will put up with quite a lot. And as long as someone a position of authority keeps feeding them garf about what is going on to reassure them that everything will really be OK, they find it quite easy to ignore troubling warnings. As an example, I give you Obama's speech yesterday. "Everything will be OK if only we tax billionaire fat cats so they can't use jets any more."

Yet history shows when the shelter, heat, food, sex and drama stop, the mob can be murderous in its rage. That's the only time the change in awareness you describe becomes possible. So we try to plant the seeds for freedom for when that day comes (only a few will grow even in the best conditions). The PE are busily working to bring about the conditions for it by arranging to deny people their shelter, heat, and food. The sex and drama might not be enough to mollify everyone.

"The game of power and servitude requires the active and willing participation of both sides, otherwise the game is over."

No, the game requires manipulated stupidity regarding civilized sanity. In particular:

a - Virtually EVERYONE AGREES (social consensus) - they do NOT want to be aggressed against, stolen from, lied to or, defrauded.

b- Where consensus is lacking (despite the FACT that preying on others collapses civilization to anarchy) is that achieving (a) requires that none be tolerated to be predator, nor prey.

The basic problem is that the Nazis (financial elite construct) militarily lost, but, politically, philosphically won, because, the dominent opinion (evidenced by actions) of arbitray power IS: Some are less human than others, making them legitimate prey.

The once resolved question of "who gets what" (those who honestly produce and contribute to civilization - peaceful commerce, trade) has been subverted by falsely framed Machiavaillian arguments of faux "fairness" and "neccessity".

Thus, rather than being peaceful and productive, we are manipulated to fight for what is ours. Elites make a hefty commission from the conflict, at the expense of collapsing civilization.

Pandora's box containing every pestilence and woe of mankind and civilization is wide open. Our far wiser ancestors once had the lid held firmly closed with the "rule of law" and objective education regarding freedom, history, economics and civilization, now rationalized away by subverted state institutions and maintained by predators on the bench:

Click to view link

Push is far beyond shove in this matter. And yet, Greece and soon, all of Europe riots for entitlements (more servitude for the productive), with North America not far behind. Current, forcefully defined / imposed "civilization" is seriously FUBAR.

What cannot go on, MUST END (the Gipper). Good riddence, may the consequences fall to those who initiated the actions.

In response to Siegfried, DB said,

"But we think people are manipulated into the stance you suggest."

No doubt about it.

I think of terms and phrases such as:

And They Thought They Were Free.
Stockholm Syndrome.
The Prussian educational system and the deliberate dumbing down of the populace.

The whole, "forever war" in the ME makes a lot more sense after reading the comment threads from these two articles on TDB.

Turning the Afghans and the Pushtains (and the Vietnamese hill People) away from tribalism and towards militarizing for the purpose of control and,... the same thing appears to be happening with the concealed carry trend in the U.S. - militarizing the independent People, grouping them in a way they were not before - making them easier to control.

Getting fingerprinted, photographed, background checked then undergoing a preliminary obedience test, er I mean, taking a gun safety class, combined with paying a fee for the supposed "right" to bear arms - how that does not raise red flags can only be explained by the list above that starts with, And They Thought They Were Free.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Interesting. We always considered concealed carry a step in the right direction. But you may have a point.

I like articles that give insights on how a free society would organize, it helps to clarify that diffuse vision.

One comment: "because people have a natural attraction to freedom and an inherent to desire to live in free or quasi-free environments". Empirical evidence seems to contradict this statement. The game of power and servitude requires the active and willing participation of both sides, otherwise the game is over.

People tend not to verbalize their part in this game in a clear manner, calling things by their names, because it implies to assume that one has willingly entered a pathological relation with those in positions of power and with one self. Life is not bearable this way, so the ultrapowerful mind always find creative ways to avoid facing the facts.

Well, it implies not only assuming one took a position in the game of power, but also... that one could stop playing this game altogether. And how much does one have to wait before taking this path of freedom? Years? months? minutes? Clearly not having to deal with those issues is the reason people chose servitude.

It's great, actually, people give power and then pretend they haven't given it, at most it's been taken, or even better it was never there in the first place. Burying the head in the sand.

The extorionist and criminal nature of governments is something everyone could understand just by understanding the very definition of state as it applies for example to the country one happens to be living. It does not require reading secret books or surfing through forbidden sites.

Certainly people are influenced by their environment and the cultural mindset of the society they grow up in, such as "State is necessary", "State is good" (only some politicians may not be so), etc. Children initially do not have the verbal comprehension and analysis abilities to confidently scratch the ideas and concepts given to them to their full extent. But sooner rather than later children end up knowing their languages enough to extrapolate the ramifications of the definition of state, and many other things. And this "enough" is very basic actually. From the very moment they acquire the verbal abilities to deal with the concept of state, they are making the first choices as with respect to power and servitude. Surely, it's easy to go with the flow, "safety in numbers" is one of the many survival strategies.

The biggest clouds I have when I try to imagine this free society actually have to do more with the fact that so far it seems apparently that the immense majority of people do not want that freedom, and prefer to live in that perpetual dependent child-like state, "free" of responsibilities with their own lives.

If people really felt a natural attraction towards freedom, would they be playing master and servant so massively? It's human nature what I am talking about. Isn't our current cultural mindset after all a consequence of the innermost characteristics of what it means to be human? Such as we have two hands, with five fingers in each, societies at large end up playing master and servant, given enough time to develop. Currently I have no clear answer to that.



I have the impression that something deep has to change in relation to awareness and consciousness so that every single individual (or most of them anyway) wants to live in freedom and not servitude. I do not see so far the maturity required to take this step. The damage we have inflicted upon ourselves is huge. It's not that they sold democracy, it's that we bought it!

Reply from The Daily Bell

You make an interesting point. But we think people are manipulated into the stance you suggest. It is not otherwise a normal occurrence. Is pathology a desirable lifestyle choice?

"They wish to put so much pressure on the Pashtuns and their Pashtunwali that the society ends up not as a gracious tribal nation but as a militarized Islamic state. That explains the planned harassment strategy against the Taliban as well. The key then is not victory but pressure ...."

Thanks DB. And the reason why PashtunWali is admirable is because it is based on moral principles, found Judaic and Islamic codes IMHO...

(Someone, I wonder who (PE?), removed the details of PashtunWali from Wikipedia, back up now! ;)

There is a deep fear in Canada that Nato under the guise of the Americans will make "blood on our streets"- therefore, we are all in favour of all American Libertarian candidates as they they tend to minding their own business,getting out of the way so people can make something to sell and look disapprovingly at bombing other nations back to the stone age.

Oops typo second paragraph!

Men used to 'sleep around' with women's tents marked as to which were prostitutes. When pregnant, the child after birth had to be checked against potential 'fathers' to determine who's child they were, the child had some rights. Thus to have a decent society one must have the courage to go against the grain and speak out AGAINST wrong, BE IT COMMON custom.

That was a whopper!:(

You will note that the areas currently suffering the benefits of elite imposed "civilization" are among the oldest inhabited areas on the planet which have therefore had the longest time to socially "evolve" in life's crucible of tit for tat, iniatiate aggression leads to defensive response.

Rather than being a sign of primitive societies, perhaps tribal orgnization, strong family ties, private justice and unto the seventh generation blood feuds are the pinnacle of mankind's knowlege from the school of hard knocks regarding what it takes to peacefully coexist?

Just suggesting...

In PRE-Islamic, tribal Arabia, many customs and traditions were awful. Including: burial of female babies for the 'shame' it brought on the family! It seems no one could rationalise or theorize the practice away. Women were used and tossed aside with no property rights or duties owed by 'partners', and by many historical accounts, treated worse than animals.

Men used to 'sleep around' with women's tents marked as to which were prostitutes. When pregnant, the child after birth had to be checked against potential 'fathers' to determine who's child they were, the child had some rights. Thus to have a decent society one must have the courage to go against the grain and speak out for wrong, be they against custom.

There is an account of a man who buried his daughter alive/threw her in a well. He gave the detailed account of this to the Holy Prophet(saw). He said that he had a daughter whom he loved very much. When the daughter was old enough to understand him and could walk, one day he called her to him. She came to her father because she loved him. He took her to the family well and threw the innocent girl in it. He said he could recall that when he pushed her in the well, he could hear her heart-rending screams. She cried, 'Father, O my father!'

On hearing this, tears started to flow from the eyes of the Holy Prophet(saw). Another person sitting there said to the narrator that he had saddened the Holy Prophet(saw). The narrator went quiet. However, the Holy Prophet(saw) asked him to relate the incident again. It is reported that even the Holy Prophet's(saw) beard was soaked with the constant stream of tears flowing down his face.

The Holy Prophet(saw) said that a person who has a baby daughter and does not bury her alive, does not demean her and does not give preference to sons over her shall be given entry to Paradise by Allah the Exalted.

After Islam spread, tribal systems remained intact, but society was transformed; whilst within the same structure as before.

I agree that tribal societies are independent (societal structures) from external control and mass manipulation, as opposed to the modern state and the international order (imagine if these were used in a positive way!).

However, any structure within society can lead to oppression and 'wrong' acts (be they on a smaller scale/location) UNLESS society is bound to MORAL norms. Society first needs morality, then a structure that's appealing.

I would be interested to hear a definition of freedom better than that everyone holds to moral standards, lessening all forms of suffering for EVERYONE - evident in ORIGINAL teachings (by the prophets),by, dare I say it: religion.

I agree with DB that vague notions of 'freedom' or single principles (NAP; often taken from 'complete' codes without accepting responsibility for other useful principles codes offer) for the attainment of freedom, are unhelpful in realistically achieving freedom from most forms of 'oppression' or 'wrong'.

Freedom begins with taming the ones who can take it away, in a comprehensive fashion. Otherwise you have a strong pot with rotten food inside. Even if a shell is fragile but food inside is pure and good, it will offer nourishment. I'm going to say it again, the world needs a moral reformation, the era of dormant souls needs to end, and the West for all its faults has a major role to play: in the latter days, "The sun shall rise from the West".

DB: "perhaps people are overlooking structure."

If, by structure, you refer to environmental factors, then, totally agree ... because, environment coreces choice. Why else would our psychopathic "rulers" be so fucussed on manipulating us and contriving false threats that allegedly require them to be "empowered", at our expense with faux solutions, to their sole benefit?:

Click to view link

As to: "We suggested that in the right circumstances, morality and freedom philosophy issues would be secondary..."

YES, but NOT for the reasons you suggest. Longstanding educational and media subversions have convinced the majority that "there is only ONE right answer" and, in our slavers eternal seeking of "consent of the governed", THEY keep us eternally fighting over OUR OPINIONS regarding what the "right answer" actually is, under the false pretext that it is legitimate to IMPOSE the "answer du jour" on allegedly insane dissenters.

Fact is, according to the physical laws of reality there are as many (near infinite number) of "right answers" (how to socially / economically organize) as are possible within the bounds of "non-initiate aggression".

If initiate aggression is tolerated, well, as we are experiencing, we can collectively kiss peace, prosperity and civilization goodbye for the simple reason that all time and energy (life) is diverted to defensive as opposed to productive activities.

"Crime does not pay" is not an opinion, to be enforced by monopolist predators on the bench collecting a pound of our flesh, renting us our inherent rights. It is a fact. Allow crime to run amok and ALL of us, criminals included perish.

This is understandable Bug and I accept that to truly obey the injunctions of God it is necessary to be Deity, a member of the family of God. a mature and "placed" son of God.

This is what He has prepared for us to be, sharing in His nature and character, always saying what the Father is saying in us and doing what we see the Father doing...moving naturally supernaturally in the will of God at all times and in all places.

Jesus is the first Perfect Man, the Head of the Body of Christ, the forerunner of the New Creation Man and He is building His people, in His Spirit, one living stone at time, into the the Perfect Man, the Christ of God, Head and Body, the Word of God made flesh Who will be revealed in due time.

This is the destiny of mankind, all of us, and it is being worked out by God in His way on His schedule.

There is three levels of freedom: MONEY, MORE MONEY AND LOTS OF MONEY on banking account. If I have lots of money I do not care about freedom of speech, religion- money is religion, elections- I do not care anyway, social security, liberty, justice etc etc.
"Give me control over country's currency and I care not who makes it's law."

Ye must learn how to live based on reality, not lunatic ideologies as freedom and democracy. Ye must learn to live as skier goes slalom arround gates with minimum loses.
Organize political parties: Social democrats-labor, Christian democrats-church, Greens. Make sure you and your circles do not vote corrupted tandem dems-reps.
Do not buy a house, rent forever. Mortgage is what bankers used as cover for late criminal activities:financial frauds. Owner of house is punished:
Owning A Home Is More Expensive Than It Looks

With renting, you do throw your money on rent because you never gain ownership of the place you're renting. However, when you own a home, you also throw your money away on other fees and taxes that never go towards your home ownership. For example, you'll pay property taxes, homeowners association dues, condominium fees, and any number of other fees associated to the area your home is in - none of which go towards the equity in your home. For example, on my home, I pay about $3,000 in property taxes each year plus $30/month for HOA fees, and $500/yr for a parks and recreation fee.
Click to view link

Live in america, work in america. Invest out.
George Bush bought 100 000 acres in Paraguay.
The Bush Family Buys Land in Paraguay-Hasta La Vista, American Chumps?
Jenna Bush, daughter of Laura and George W Bush went to Paraguay to buy over 100,000 acres of land not too long ago. It was kept quiet. Some say that the purchase was a compliment to a 200,000 acre Paraguay land purchase that Jenna's grandfather, Poppy Bush, made in 2005. Such land, rich in natural gas and water aquifers seems the thing to do.
It seems that the Bush family has walked on the edge for generations. Perhaps having a place of sanctuary like Paraguay for the Bushes is like buying an insurance policy. Paraguay has no extradition policy. Hmm. Interesting.
Click to view link
South America becaem hideout for nazis with american help, about 200 000. Those former nazis became roots of next troubles and decline of South America.
I know americans who live out. They come into states and work: hotels-season, construction, truck drivers, but they are journalists, writers, intelectuals. As truck driver pay no rent, no car insurance sleeps in truck. Comes here 2x 10 weeks. They makes $ 20 000. As they pay taxes they fell into powerty level, as family, so IRS pays 'em to the poverty level. Up to $ 8000. They pay no taxes at all and get more home than earn. With $25 000 one is rich on majority of the world, but poor in america. America is out there. Why wasting time with BATTLE? Try to learn from Danny Greene.

Thank you.

I will not pretend to know from where the root of such an idea came.

My concern with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that is presupposes a) proactively taking action toward another person is "good", and b) that one knows what the other might view as beneficial and should feel free to act accordingly.

Now, if the person on the end of the "doing" is as saintly as Jesus, no problem. When you find another like Him, let me know. We see the evils foisted upon men in the name of supposedly "doing good."

I would rather be left alone by my fellow man except when I find others with whom we agree to mutually beneficial relationships, thank you very much.

Number of Millionaires in Congress: 261. While the base pay for members of Congress is $174,000, nearly half -- 261, to be exact -- are millionaires, according to an analysis of 2009 data from the Center for Responsive Politics (there are 535 total members of the House and Senate). Just 1 percent of Americans overall can say the same.
Click to view link
ROYAL PRESIDENTS:Davidic Covenant Fulfilled in the UNITED STATES. When it comes to picking the winner in the American presidential race, Britain's leading chroniclers of royal ancestors say they've never been wrong - not once in almost 200 years. Based on facts gleaned from the old scrolls and dusty archives of Burke's Peerage - researchers of royal bloodlines since 1826. At least 25 American Presidents are related to each other.
Click to view link
Burke's Peerage web page. Contact 'em to make prediction for next presidential election comedy. Click to view link
PRESIDENTIAL ORDER: Someone makes rules for himself! It is understandable that president wants to do good for americans and try to overrun milionaries in congress. But presidential orders must be validated by REFERENDUM. The same apply on any rulling over human rights: Patriot act. Referendum must be mandatory and congress and president has 60 days to comply law with referendum result. If not, new elections and those who failed to fill vox populi vox deus can not run 5 years for public office. USA has 300 milion people, we can find enough people who will work for us. Last day in office is the last day of payment. Pension must be based on age and income on social security as ordinary citizens has. No gods rulling on earth anymore. THOSE WHO THOUGHT THAT CAN NOT BE REPLACED ARE FULL CEMETERIES.
"Professor Michael Hudson are urging an end to the 'financial warfare (being waged) on Greece'. In his latest analysis here the good professor also firmly advises the Greeks to 'do an Iceland'.
I would say the same as to Greece apply to America. REFERENDUM. As soon as there is referendum there is no more such things as academic political theories making things look good as:capitalism,communism,left,right,dems,libs etc. People know what is GOOD for them. They knew it before teories were developed and still has some farmers brain in head with logic. See Bank of North Dakota history. Everything what worx is good until stop working and must be repaired or replaced. Iceland drafted new constitution. Old one is classy oligarchal based on Denmark rulin' over Iceland.
Who says the Elite don't run this country, and have run this country from the beginning?