Libertopia
Paul Antonik Wakfer
called Libertopia - http://libertopia.org, which is having a
conference and get-together in San Francisco July 1-4, 2010. This
entry is a critical analysis of the current text of that website.
Let me say first off that I am highly positive about the essence of
the Libertopia concept and very much hope that it is successful. That
having been said, here are some major criticisms, some of which also
apply to practically all other libertarian organizations and
descriptive efforts.
1) The name "libertopia" is a major negative. The major reason for
this is the play on the word "utopia", which means:
2 : a place, state, or condition of ideal perfection especially in
laws, government, and social conditions
3 : an impractical and usually impossibly ideal scheme especially for
social improvement
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-
Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (6 Mar. 2010).
Now the *very last* thing that libertarians should want is to promote
the notion that the social system espoused by libertarians is
*utopian*, particularly because that is the chief criticism that
libertarian ideas generally receive from non-libertarians!
Adopting this name is almost as bad as the life extension organization
that named itself "Immortality Institute" (which I counseled its
founders against right from the start and might have been one of those
founders, but for the name) and yet is promoting a fully scientific
approach to life extension, including cryonics. For those who still
don't get my point, true immortality is impossible, since any life can
be irreversibly terminated and even the universe in which humans live
has a finite lifetime.
2) "Libertopia is an annual festival of freedom, community and art for
sovereign individuals."
Since no such festival has yet occurred, the above statement is highly
misleading, tantamount to hype. Only way down on the page is it
clearly stated that this is the inaugural meeting: "Join us at
Libertopia 2010 in San Francisco for the first time gathering of
sovereign individuals." But even that is more hype, since there most
certainly have been other gatherings of sovereign individuals. My wife
Kitty and I have such a meeting every day, and when a certain few
people visit us or we visit them, then the meeting comprises even more
than two.
It would have been far less misleading and far more honest to simply
state right off: "Libertopia is envisaged as an annual festival of
freedom, community and art for sovereign individuals, which is being
inaugurated this year."
3) "... a voluntary society based on mutual respect for each
individual’s dignity ..."
This is a feel-good phrase, which can have no other purpose than to
attract the non-critical thinker. For that matter, even the meaning of
the word "dignity" is highly ambiguous, with some people holding
vastly different meanings from others.
It is certainly wrong to have *any* respect for ilk such as members of
the team who savaged at Waco, for inhuman monsters such as Hitler or
even for creatures such as have been all recent Presidents of the US -
and I sincerely hope that no libertarian has any respect for any such
individuals.
And what is the relevance of "dignity" to libertarianism, which
political philosophy maintains that all that is necessary is to not
initiate coercion/aggression (the use or threat of physical force)
against any other individual human being (the Non-Aggression Principle
- NAP)?
In fact, it is fundamental within libertarianism (as opposed to
Objectivism, for example) that each individual should be at liberty to
do as s/he pleases, and hir actions be acceptable with respect to
mutual exchange of value, as long as s/he fully respects the rights of
others by adhering to the NAP.
4) "This is a movement that rejects the use of violence or coercion by
one person or a group of people ..."
This is the NAP trotted out again. However, unless all methods and
instances of its application are clearly categorized and defined, the
NAP is highly deficient in meaning and consistent, unambiguous
application. Here are some example initiations of direct physical
force which are clearly not wrong or are correct action for the
initiating individual as long as s/he is fully responsible for any
negative consequences of hir action.
a) A parent initiates physical force to prevent hir child from running
out into a road full of traffic.
b) One adult sees another adult about to walk in front of a moving
vehicle and grabs hir out of the way.
c) A person is lost in a wilderness/desert, is starving near death and
comes upon a cache of food/water/shelter clearly marked as the
property of someone else. S/he takes and uses the property in the cash
in order to save hir life and to have some chance of reaching
civilization.
All these examples, others of a similar kind and still others of a
different kind are totally solved by a social system the foundations
of which are provided by my treatise: "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis
for Optimal Interaction" at: http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html
Finally, with reference to the above quote, the important libertarian
adherence to the principle of methodological individualism (PMI) is
lost and subverted by the inclusion of "a group of people" as being
able to perpetrate an action "of violence or coercion" (or any action
at all, for that matter). It is a fundamental tenet of PMI that *only
individuals can act and can be held responsible for their actions*.
5) "This forum is for members only. It's contents can only be seen by
patrons and personnel of Libertopia 2010 who have registered and been
approved by Libertopia administration."
While it is certainly acceptable and useful for only registered and
approved people to be able to post on the forum (even better that full
identification be required), the very last thing that libertarians
should want it is to hide themselves and their dialog from others. All
entries on this forum and all other libertarian forums should be open
to anyone on the Internet. Most important of all, a closed libertarian
forum enables nothing but "preaching to the choir" and at the same
time sows seeds of suspicion among those interested/curious parties
who may be open to persuasive change by libertarian writings.
There are other phrases and organizational arrangements that I could
critique on both the Libertopia home page and elsewhere on the
(currently very small) website but these are the important ones and
are enough for now.
--Paul Wakfer
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
Max Peto
> Very recently a friend made me aware of the new movement and website
> conference and get-together in San Francisco July 1-4, 2010. This
> entry is a critical analysis of the current text of that website.
>
> Let me say first off that I am highly positive about the essence of
> the Libertopia concept and very much hope that it is successful.
I agree. The topic and the spirit of the event sound great to me, and
I also hope it is highly successful. If it wasn't so far away from me
(and thus being unusually resource-consuming for me to be there), I
think I would highly enjoy attending.
> That
> having been said, here are some major criticisms, some of which also
> apply to practically all other libertarian organizations and
> descriptive efforts.
>
> 1) The name "libertopia" is a major negative. The major reason for
> this is the play on the word "utopia", which means:
>
> 2 : a place, state, or condition of ideal perfection especially in
> laws, government, and social conditions
> 3 : an impractical and usually impossibly ideal scheme especially for
> social improvement
> Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-
> Webster, 2002.http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com(6 Mar. 2010).
I agree that using the suffix "-topia" alludes to "utopia", which, in
my view, is excessively enthusiastic about the potential outcomes of
such an event. That is, and related to Paul's referenced definitions
above, I interpret the use of this suffix to imply "perfection",
especially to an unachievable degree. Which may make a reasonable
reader be turned off to the event as being overzealous or naive.
I fully agree that Paul's proposed statement, in quotes above, would
more accurately communicate the purpose and character of the event
better than what he quoted in "2)" (i.e. what is currently on the
website).
> 3) "... a voluntary society based on mutual respect for each
> individual’s dignity ..."
>
> This is a feel-good phrase, which can have no other purpose than to
> attract the non-critical thinker. For that matter, even the meaning of
> the word "dignity" is highly ambiguous, with some people holding
> vastly different meanings from others.
>
> It is certainly wrong to have *any* respect for ilk such as members of
> the team who savaged at Waco, for inhuman monsters such as Hitler or
> even for creatures such as have been all recent Presidents of the US -
> and I sincerely hope that no libertarian has any respect for any such
> individuals.
With regard to "respect", I agree that the statement seems to me to be
a feel-good statement, especially due to the words "mutual respect".
This phrase makes the reader feel welcome and invited to participate.
However, I agree with Paul's comment in that this phrase may indicate
that respect is instantly given to any persons participating (i.e.
that "mutual respect" is a requirement for participation), when this
is certainly not necessarily so.
I agree with Paul's assertion directly above in that it is
*individuals* whom ultimately take any *action* - *not groups*. So it
is sufficient to state that the movement "rejects the use of violence
or coercion", or may even append that statement with the phrase "by
individuals", since the term "individuals" implicates any member of
any group, (since groups are made up of individuals, and only
individuals make choices and take actions). Note that my first
suggestion omitted the phrase "by individuals" since it seems to me
that this is assumed. That is, it is presumed that the group is
rejecting this behavior from *humans*, and is not focused on this
behavior in turtles, trees, or penguins.
> 5) "This forum is for members only. It's contents can only be seen by
> patrons and personnel of Libertopia 2010 who have registered and been
> approved by Libertopia administration."
>
> While it is certainly acceptable and useful for only registered and
> approved people to be able to post on the forum (even better that full
> identification be required), the very last thing that libertarians
> should want it is to hide themselves and their dialog from others. All
> entries on this forum and all other libertarian forums should be open
> to anyone on the Internet.
> Most important of all, a closed libertarian
> forum enables nothing but "preaching to the choir" and at the same
> time sows seeds of suspicion among those interested/curious parties
> who may be open to persuasive change by libertarian writings.
Good point Paul: openness and rejection of anonymity will help to earn
the trust, and perhaps ultimately interest, of others, while anonymity
and secrecy may undermine both. It is also a good point I did not
realize to see that a closed libertarian forum will only be open to
members, which are likely to be of a libertarian bent anyhow. If part
of the purpose of such a movement is to facilitate learning,
discussion, and adoption of libertarian ideas, this implies that
people who *don't know* about libertarianism must be exposed to them,
and secrecy only inhibits this.
--
Max Peto
> There are other phrases and organizational arrangements that I could
> critique on both the Libertopia home page and elsewhere on the
> (currently very small) website but these are the important ones and
> are enough for now.
>
> --Paul Wakfer
>
> 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
Paul Wakfer
Just so it is very clear, my comments about the use and allusion to utopia, were related to the *movement concept* and the society espoused by that movement rather than about any events which would be part of that movement and the steps necessary to achieve such a society. This should have been clear from my next paragraph, which I leave in before deleting the rest.
--Paul
Max Peto
> Max Peto wrote:
Yes, my first comment was directed toward the website itself, which
seemed to be only related to this year's event. However, I see now, as
you indicated, that you were directing this comment toward the movement
concept, rather than the single event, as is clear below when you
referred to "the social system espoused by libertarians".
--
Max
Joyce Brand
website because we are not writers, and particularly not copywriters.
I'm a film editor by profession and my partner is a movie producer who
has also put on large conventions of up to 10,000 people, but in this
case we did not have the budget to hire a copywriter.
I would like to address each of Paul's five points.
On Mar 7, 5:09 pm, Paul Antonik Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
> Very recently a friend made me aware of the new movement and website
> called Libertopia -http://libertopia.org, which is having a
> conference and get-together in San Francisco July 1-4, 2010. This
> entry is a critical analysis of the current text of that website.
>
> Let me say first off that I am highly positive about the essence of
> the Libertopia concept and very much hope that it is successful. That
> having been said, here are some major criticisms, some of which also
> apply to practically all other libertarian organizations and
> descriptive efforts.
>
> 1) The name "libertopia" is a major negative. The major reason for
> this is the play on the word "utopia", which means:
>
> 2 : a place, state, or condition of ideal perfection especially in
> laws, government, and social conditions
> 3 : an impractical and usually impossibly ideal scheme especially for
> social improvement
> Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-
> Webster, 2002.http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com(6 Mar. 2010).
>
> Now the *very last* thing that libertarians should want is to promote
> the notion that the social system espoused by libertarians is
> *utopian*, particularly because that is the chief criticism that
> libertarian ideas generally receive from non-libertarians!
>
> Adopting this name is almost as bad as the life extension organization
> that named itself "Immortality Institute" (which I counseled its
> founders against right from the start and might have been one of those
> founders, but for the name) and yet is promoting a fully scientific
> approach to life extension, including cryonics. For those who still
> don't get my point, true immortality is impossible, since any life can
> be irreversibly terminated and even the universe in which humans live
> has a finite lifetime.
1. I certainly understand the point about the name. I have used it in
that pejorative sense myself, as in "When we talk about a voluntary
society, we are not talking about some libertopia." I was persuaded
that the word had another meaning as well. Just as "anarchy" can mean
either "chaos" or "spontaneous order," libertopia can mean either
someone's plan to impose their idea of the perfect society (like a
utopia) or the opposite, the ideal of everyone's liberty to run their
own lives. Although some people who analyze the word don't like it
because of the utopia connotation, it seems that more people
understand it as meaning the ideal of liberty. At any rate, it is too
late to change it.
> 2) "Libertopia is an annual festival of freedom, community and art for
> sovereign individuals."
>
> Since no such festival has yet occurred, the above statement is highly
> misleading, tantamount to hype. Only way down on the page is it
> clearly stated that this is the inaugural meeting: "Join us at
> Libertopia 2010 in San Francisco for the first time gathering of
> sovereign individuals." But even that is more hype, since there most
> certainly have been other gatherings of sovereign individuals. My wife
> Kitty and I have such a meeting every day, and when a certain few
> people visit us or we visit them, then the meeting comprises even more
> than two.
>
> It would have been far less misleading and far more honest to simply
> state right off: "Libertopia is envisaged as an annual festival of
> freedom, community and art for sovereign individuals, which is being
> inaugurated this year."
2. Libertopia was conceived as a sort of antidote to Freedom Fest in
Las Vegas. My partner goes every year but feels that it has been co-
opted by conservatives and has become an over-priced, boring weekend
of running from one long speech to another. To speak of Libertopia
being "envisaged" as an annual festival seemed to undermine our
commitment to making it an annual festival, but we thought the phrase
about "first ever gathering" would make it clear that it was the
first. Perhaps that should have appeared earlier in the copy. And what
we meant by first ever gathering is first of its kind. We don't know
of any other conference/festival with this kind of emphasis on the
idea of voluntary society, the enabling of community (social
networking), and the celebration of all kinds of libertarian art.
> 3) "... a voluntary society based on mutual respect for each
> individual’s dignity ..."
>
> This is a feel-good phrase, which can have no other purpose than to
> attract the non-critical thinker. For that matter, even the meaning of
> the word "dignity" is highly ambiguous, with some people holding
> vastly different meanings from others.
>
> It is certainly wrong to have *any* respect for ilk such as members of
> the team who savaged at Waco, for inhuman monsters such as Hitler or
> even for creatures such as have been all recent Presidents of the US -
> and I sincerely hope that no libertarian has any respect for any such
> individuals.
>
> And what is the relevance of "dignity" to libertarianism, which
> political philosophy maintains that all that is necessary is to not
> initiate coercion/aggression (the use or threat of physical force)
> against any other individual human being (the Non-Aggression Principle
> - NAP)?
>
> In fact, it is fundamental within libertarianism (as opposed to
> Objectivism, for example) that each individual should be at liberty to
> do as s/he pleases, and hir actions be acceptable with respect to
> mutual exchange of value, as long as s/he fully respects the rights of
> others by adhering to the NAP.
3. That is just sloppy writing, probably based on the desire to make
it an event where people would treat each other with respect.
4. Of course, you are right that only individuals can act. The reason
for including the phrase about coercion by groups is to make it clear
that we don't accept the almost universally held belief that actions
which are immoral when done by an individual are suddenly moral when
done under color of authority from the group (i.e., democratically
elected government).
> 5) "This forum is for members only. It's contents can only be seen by
> patrons and personnel of Libertopia 2010 who have registered and been
> approved by Libertopia administration."
>
> While it is certainly acceptable and useful for only registered and
> approved people to be able to post on the forum (even better that full
> identification be required), the very last thing that libertarians
> should want it is to hide themselves and their dialog from others. All
> entries on this forum and all other libertarian forums should be open
> to anyone on the Internet. Most important of all, a closed libertarian
> forum enables nothing but "preaching to the choir" and at the same
> time sows seeds of suspicion among those interested/curious parties
> who may be open to persuasive change by libertarian writings.
5. The reason the forum is for members only is because there are
plenty of public forums for outreach to non-libertarians. This forum
is specifically designed to be an added benefit for our members to get
to know each other and any speakers willing to participate before they
meet in person. We want people to be able to communicate with their
real names in privacy without worrying about what strangers might be
reading their posts.
Joyce Brand
> There are other phrases and organizational arrangements that I could
> critique on both the Libertopia home page and elsewhere on the
> (currently very small) website but these are the important ones and
> are enough for now.
>
> --Paul Wakfer
>
> 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
Paul Wakfer
I want to first thank you very much for responding (as I asked), doing
so inline and with all the right formatting. WOW!
Actually, "anarchy" does not mean either of those, but rather simply "no
rule/rulers". Whether or not the *result* of anarchy is "chaos" or
"spontaneous order" depends on the state of social understanding and
intelligence of those who would otherwise be the ruled or the rulers. As
the Merriam-Webster definition states for anarchy:
"Etymology: Medieval Latin /anarchia, /from Greek, from /anarchos
/rulerless (from /an- + archos /ruler) + /-ia /-y -- more at ARCHI-
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=archi->
1a: absence of government <society finds its highest perfection in the
union of order with /anarchy/ -- B.R.Tucker>"
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Mar. 2010).
I left in the quote from Tucker (an important 19th century American
individualist anarchist) since it is particularly appropriate here.
All other meanings are not true to the etymological (Latin and Greek)
meaning, have only crept into the language because of distortions by
those against the concept and should be ignored. However because so many
people in the current society think that anarchy means chaos, the word
has been effectively destroyed for usage if one's purpose is truly to
try to convince the naive person that a self-ordered society without
rulers is indeed possible and would even be far, far better than what
currently exists. That is why I do not generally call myself an
anarchist, not even with qualifiers.
> libertopia can mean either
> someone's plan to impose their idea of the perfect society (like a
> utopia) or the opposite, the ideal of everyone's liberty to run their
> own lives.
As with the word "anarchy", you are confounding the meaning of the word
as a kind of "utopia" (read again its meaning in my original message
above) with the results of its application. "libertopia" must
etymologically be a type of utopia. How one reaches it and how it is
implemented is another matter. The main feature of any such
[something-]utopia is that it is an inherently unattainable ideal.
Perhaps I erred in not including the etymology with its definition above:
"Etymology: from /Utopia /an imaginary country with ideal laws and
social conditions (from Greek /ou /not, no + /topos /place) described in
the book /Utopia /(1516) by Sir Thomas More"
The root meaning of "no place" clearly shows that the word is
fundamentally meant to be an impossibility.
Now my philosophical convictions are that impossible things (things
which cannot logically exist in reality) are a total waste of time and
should not even be thought about. Therefore I consider that this is one
word which the English language would be better off without, because
simply having the word in the language suggests that contradictions can
actually exist in reality. However it is entirely reasonable and even
highly valuable to have words that describe possible ideals to which one
should aspire and get ever closer as oneself (together with those in
one's society, if the ideal requires that) becomes more and more
intelligent, knowledgeable and mature.
> Although some people who analyze the word don't like it
> because of the utopia connotation, it seems that more people
> understand it as meaning the ideal of liberty. At any rate, it is too
> late to change it.
Yes, I fully understand the latter, and since, very unfortunately, so
few people really analyze things these days, it probably won't hurt your
project much. (Just like the name "Immortality Institute" seems not to
have stopped them from gaining much support including hundreds of
posters on their forum but still not me, except for a short time when I
was invited to give a videocast presentation - which somehow got lost
(twice) and is not available at their website.)
>> 2) "Libertopia is an annual festival of freedom, community and art for
>> sovereign individuals."
>>
>> Since no such festival has yet occurred, the above statement is highly
>> misleading, tantamount to hype. Only way down on the page is it
>> clearly stated that this is the inaugural meeting: "Join us at
>> Libertopia 2010 in San Francisco for the first time gathering of
>> sovereign individuals." But even that is more hype, since there most
>> certainly have been other gatherings of sovereign individuals. My wife
>> Kitty and I have such a meeting every day, and when a certain few
>> people visit us or we visit them, then the meeting comprises even more
>> than two.
>>
>> It would have been far less misleading and far more honest to simply
>> state right off: "Libertopia is envisaged as an annual festival of
>> freedom, community and art for sovereign individuals, which is being
>> inaugurated this year."
>
> 2. Libertopia was conceived as a sort of antidote to Freedom Fest in
> Las Vegas. My partner goes every year but feels that it has been co-
> opted by conservatives and has become an over-priced, boring weekend
> of running from one long speech to another.
Thanks for the description, which makes me more certain that I do not
want to go. Far better to attend the Freedom Summit in Phoenix (which I
and Kitty did in 2002), but these seem to have been discontinued for
several years now.
> To speak of Libertopia
> being "envisaged" as an annual festival seemed to undermine our
> commitment to making it an annual festival, but we thought the phrase
> about "first ever gathering" would make it clear that it was the
> first. Perhaps that should have appeared earlier in the copy.
Yes, my word "envisaged" was only intended as a possibility, and I can
certainly see your point about it. How about right at the start simply say:
"Libertopia [will be] an annual festival of freedom, community and art
for sovereign individuals."
That is a simple change, yet not hypey and still very positive/optimistic.
> And what
> we meant by first ever gathering is first of its kind. We don't know
> of any other conference/festival with this kind of emphasis on the
> idea of voluntary society, the enabling of community (social
> networking), and the celebration of all kinds of libertarian art.
Then in the later statement (of reemphasis, which is good) you could
say: "Join us at Libertopia 2010 in San Francisco for the first time
gathering of large numbers of sovereign individuals seeking a fully
voluntary, self-ordered society." (Or some such expanded version.)
>> 3) "... a voluntary society based on mutual respect for each
>> individual�s dignity ..."
>>
>> This is a feel-good phrase, which can have no other purpose than to
>> attract the non-critical thinker. For that matter, even the meaning of
>> the word "dignity" is highly ambiguous, with some people holding
>> vastly different meanings from others.
>>
>> It is certainly wrong to have *any* respect for ilk such as members of
>> the team who savaged at Waco, for inhuman monsters such as Hitler or
>> even for creatures such as have been all recent Presidents of the US -
>> and I sincerely hope that no libertarian has any respect for any such
>> individuals.
>>
>> And what is the relevance of "dignity" to libertarianism, which
>> political philosophy maintains that all that is necessary is to not
>> initiate coercion/aggression (the use or threat of physical force)
>> against any other individual human being (the Non-Aggression Principle
>> - NAP)?
>>
>> In fact, it is fundamental within libertarianism (as opposed to
>> Objectivism, for example) that each individual should be at liberty to
>> do as s/he pleases, and hir actions be acceptable with respect to
>> mutual exchange of value, as long as s/he fully respects the rights of
>> others by adhering to the NAP.
>
> 3. That is just sloppy writing, probably based on the desire to make
> it an event where people would treat each other with respect.
If they are all really sovereign individuals truly seeking a voluntary
society of self-order, then they must necessarily have sufficient
respect to not want any harm (either physical or psychological) to come
to each other. So I don't see that it is really necessary for you to
emphasize any such desire - else you are effectively acting like a
parent/teacher talking to children/students.
Yes, I fully understood that was why you were stating it that way
(importantly for those who are not yet fully libertarian in that
respect), and if there were no better way then that way of saying it, that
would be helpful. My point is that there *is* a far better way and that
libertarians in general (of which you and your website is but the one
example that started this critique group) are doing themselves and their
purposes a disservice by rarely using that better way.
>> 5) "This forum is for members only. It's contents can only be seen by
>> patrons and personnel of Libertopia 2010 who have registered and been
>> approved by Libertopia administration."
>>
>> While it is certainly acceptable and useful for only registered and
>> approved people to be able to post on the forum (even better that full
>> identification be required), the very last thing that libertarians
>> should want it is to hide themselves and their dialog from others. All
>> entries on this forum and all other libertarian forums should be open
>> to anyone on the Internet. Most important of all, a closed libertarian
>> forum enables nothing but "preaching to the choir" and at the same
>> time sows seeds of suspicion among those interested/curious parties
>> who may be open to persuasive change by libertarian writings.
>
> 5. The reason the forum is for members only is because there are
> plenty of public forums for outreach to non-libertarians. This forum
> is specifically designed to be an added benefit for our members to get
> to know each other and any speakers willing to participate before they
> meet in person. We want people to be able to communicate with their
> real names in privacy without worrying about what strangers might be
> reading their posts.
> Joyce Brand
Joyce, as you known the *State* can still read all the posts, so all
that the above does is enable and condone people for being so cowardly
that they will not post in public under their real name the same things
that they will in private. In this regard please read:
http://selfsip.org/focus/anonymity.html as one of many that I and Kitty
have written on this topic. But in any case, I don't see any mechanism
that you have for ensuring that people be fully identified and use real
names.
Still, in all good will I wish you great success in drawing a large
group and at least breaking even on the financing of the event. At that
time of year, I must be back in Canada (I am only allowed six months at
a time in the US as a visitor - and the reverse for Kitty as a visitor
to Canada) and we certainly do not have the money to fly from Canada
(even if we could tolerate to ever fly with the current security
stupidity). However if another year the festival is earlier (preferably
late April or early May) then we might consider coming, since we do both
like the San Francisco area and would enjoy the drive there - perhaps
even on our way back to Canada (although it is really out-of-the-way for
that!).
--Paul Wakfer
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
Kitty Antonik Wakfer
I wish you guys had been around when we were writing the copy for the website because we are not writers, and particularly not copywriters. I'm a film editor by profession and my partner is a movie producer who has also put on large conventions of up to 10,000 people, but in this case we did not have the budget to hire a copywriter. I would like to address each of Paul's five points. On Mar 7, 5:09�pm, Paul Antonik Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
I've wondered to myself at times over the last few days if there was not a better name that could still be used. Considering Latin suffixes, the word "libertaria" came to mind very quickly; "-aria" is plural for -arium
Etymology: Latin, from neuter of -arius -ary
: thing or place belonging to or connected with <aquarium> <planetarium>
"-arium." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
A website for "Libertaria" does exist as a .com on the web - http://www.libertaria.com/ - related primarily to the writings of a Don Paragon, described as "Poet, songwriter, visionary and performing artist" at his website, http://www.donparagon.com� However the foundational writing by Paragon - "Vision of the Future" - cannot be accessed at the libertaria.com website or from Paragon's own website; also a "404 Not Found" error occurs from the several links for his philosophy. (The page is available, however, via the Internet archive.)
In addition to this website appearing to being currently dormant (or at least static), there is no active use of websites under the names libertaria.org or .net, although both have been reserved. In both cases though, it is quite possible that an arrangement could be worked to rent the domain of .org or .net from the current owners. (The .net is owned by the same party who owns the .com; the .org is registered to a company that holds numerous sites names on speculation.)
Another possibility is blending the words "liberty" and "society" - libertociety. And there is also "libertplatia", a combining of "liberty" and "place". Neither roll off the tongue quite as nicely as "libertaria", but at least no websites exist for either new word.
Now if one of the above words - or a different one - is decided would be better than "libertopia", I think that a well written explanation can be created for why a change is warranted even now. Then the old site is simply used as a redirect for the new one and the name change explanation is a prominent link. The logo can also have a small subtitle: "formerly Libertopia", if desired.
Some ideas for you to consider,
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer 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