Genius vs Average People
Jay Lewis
most self sufficient intelligent capable people. People who did well
in school without cheating. We want society to be a meritocracy
because we are confident we would do well.
It may be impossible for average people to self organize in an optimal
way, nor do they want to be servants of an intellectual elite. This
is why Sarah Palin is so popular. Even if they could do well in a
meritocracy they do not feel confident of this. Those with wealth
already want to protect it and those without want it more
redistributed across the masses in the hopes this will help them.
The republicans genius is in adopting religion to harness those masses
that would otherwise not support the wealthiest few.
How do we excel given that we know free markets work for everyone but
the average person and the wealthy are opposed to this? I believe the
secret is to find ways to use free markets to become more individually
successful. This does four things:
1. Proves our thesis that free markets lead to success
2. Increases our influence - we can support candidates,advertise,
sponsor documentaries, etc
3. Provides the sense of meritocracy most of us want in the first
place.
4. Demonstrates to others that it works
How much is enough? Just for personal freedom $10M may be adequate,
but to reach Rupert Murdoch levels of influence will take $Bs.
Paul Wakfer
the topics and idea that I had in mind for this group, since:
1) it is the first new thread from anyone but me,
2) it is from someone who is not familiar to nor, likely, with me (his
identity was verified by being known to Jack (David T Jackemeyer),
3) the message contains some major misunderstandings about libertarians,
4) it needs to be pointed out just how and why this message does not
conform to the group's stated purpose,
I decided to let it be posted.
Jay Lewis wrote:
> My main critique of libertarianism in general is that it attracts the
> most self sufficient intelligent capable people. People who did well
> in school without cheating. We want society to be a meritocracy
> because we are confident we would do well.
Several question need to be asked here.
1) What evidence do you have that libertarianism "attracts the most self
sufficient intelligent capable people"? If you have any, then provide a
link and if you do not then at least describe by what logic based on
what facts you arrive at this conclusion. In my experience that it not
true any more than is true for many other ideologies. In fact when I
first got involved with libertarianism over 30 years ago, it was a great
disappointment when I realized, after some time, that the people
attracted to it were of all types in intellect, education and even basic
morals.
2) Who is this "we" who wants "society to be a meritocracy"? I have
never heard *any* libertarian say s/he wants a meritocracy. In fact the
very notion of *any* "cracy" (ruling group) is contrary to all
fundamentals of libertarianism, even for the inconsistent minimal
governmentalists. So again you will need to provide some evidence for
such a statement or a very different definition of what you meant when
you used "meritocracy" (in which case you should stop using that word
since it literally means "rule by the most capable and able"). Relative
to the use of "we" in most cases, I strongly suggest that you read my
essay "Collectivism in Language: Its Effects on Valid Reasoning" at:
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html, and BTW, Ludwig von Mises
himself made much the same point (see for example my critique at:
http://blog.mises.org/9840/the-principle-of-methodological-individualism/#comment-536657).
> It may be impossible for average people to self organize in an optimal
> way, nor do they want to be servants of an intellectual elite.
No one has to "self organize in an optimal way". All that is really
needed is to act efficiently enough to stay alive. Doing better than
that will be something which is learned by the adults as they amend past
actions that were clearly not optimal and by the growing children as a
way of life. And no one has to be a servant unless s/he is so inept that
s/he cannot remain alive without such guardianship via partial servitude.
> This
> is why Sarah Palin is so popular. Even if they could do well in a
> meritocracy they do not feel confident of this. Those with wealth
> already want to protect it and those without want it more
> redistributed across the masses in the hopes this will help them.
>
You have totally missed a major point implied by the Theory of Social
Meta-Needs <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html>, which
is that no one can optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness in
isolation. This can only occur when it is happening for all people in a
society at one and the same time, each according to hir own individual
assessment of Lifetime Happiness for hirself. The short motto "All for
one and one for all!" helps one remember this.
> The republicans genius is in adopting religion to harness those masses
> that would otherwise not support the wealthiest few.
>
There need not be any "wealthiest few" and in a totally free society, so
much wealth would not be held by so few as in this severely limited
society where most of such wealth is obtained by working in cahoot with
the State. In a totally free and self-ordered society very few people
would be "supporting" *anyone* else, and most certainly not anyone very
wealthy. Perhaps you need to rethink and redefine what you mean by
"support".
> How do we excel given that we know free markets work for everyone
Again your use of "we" is incorrect. Each individual thinks, evaluates
and acts in a uniquely different way to every other individual. You also
need to define both "free markets" and "work for everyone" in more
precise terms for me and other readers to be sure that we each
understand you.
> but
> the average person and the wealthy are opposed to this?
There is no such thing as "the average person" - all are uniquely
different and open to different persuasive and/or learning approaches.
If shown that, why and how a truly free society will optimally increase
hir Lifetime Happiness any person can be persuaded to endorse it. I
agree that there are many in the current society who will never likely
be so persuaded, but that is why any change to a truly free society will
take at least a generation and will depend on persuading the youth whose
ideas and convictions are not yet fully formed.
> I believe the
> secret is to find ways to use free markets to become more individually
> successful.
This first requires a definition of "free markets" but given a
reasonable definition, this is not possible in the current and
encroaching statist society without essentially getting in bed with the
State. Instead it is time to opt out of cooperation and working within
that State and go underground.
> This does four things:
> 1. Proves our thesis that free markets lead to success
This first requires definitions of "free markets" and "success", but
given reasonable such definitions it is true only when unrestricted by
the State, so it cannot be proven within any current society on Earth.
> 2. Increases our influence - we can support candidates,
The last is supportive of the State and has no place for anyone
attempting to bring about a truly free society.
> advertise, sponsor documentaries, etc
> 3. Provides the sense of meritocracy most of us want in the first
> place.
Speak for yourself! I certainly have no desire for any meritocracy.
> 4. Demonstrates to others that it works
>
> How much is enough? Just for personal freedom $10M may be adequate,
Again you need to define what you mean by "freedom". Under my definition
of "freedom (as Available Actions) I certainly have no need for any such
assets to have adequate actions available to me (to the extent that they
have been brought into existence - which is the real problem). As for
Liberty, in the current society even large amounts of money will no
longer buy an adequate amount of it.
> but to reach Rupert Murdoch levels of influence will take $Bs.
Why would one want to spend all one's scarce and precious time in such a
pursuit which does little to optimally increase the Lifetime Happiness
of any rational thinking person?
Finally relative to point 4 of my opening remarks, the content of Jay's
message is mainly the *strategy* of implementing what he thinks
(incorrectly I maintain) is libertarianism and of persuasion of people
to adopt it as their social/political approach to social interaction,
whereas the group's purpose is:
"To originate/discuss critical analyses of libertarian philosophy, both
theory and applications, particularly including individualist market
anarchism".
--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
Jay Lewis
Thanks for letting me participate.
On Mar 31, 1:37 pm, Paul Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
> 1) What evidence do you have that libertarianism "attracts the most self
> sufficient intelligent capable people"? If you have any, then provide a
> link and if you do not then at least describe by what logic based on
> what facts you arrive at this conclusion. In my experience that it not
> true any more than is true for many other ideologies. In fact when I
> first got involved with libertarianism over 30 years ago, it was a great
> disappointment when I realized, after some time, that the people
> attracted to it were of all types in intellect, education and even basic
> morals.
Good catch! I could not find this by Topeka'ing and just one mention
that Mensa members are disproportionately Libertarian but nor
reference so perhaps I'm not the only one to make this assumption. Do
you have a link showing that libertarian intelligence has the same
distribution as non-libertarians?
> 2) Who is this "we" who wants "society to be a meritocracy"? I have
> never heard *any* libertarian say s/he wants a meritocracy. In fact the
> very notion of *any* "cracy" (ruling group) is contrary to all
> fundamentals of libertarianism, even for the inconsistent minimal
> governmentalists. So again you will need to provide some evidence for
> such a statement or a very different definition of what you meant when
> you used "meritocracy" (in which case you should stop using that word
> since it literally means "rule by the most capable and able"). Relative
> to the use of "we" in most cases, I strongly suggest that you read my
> essay "Collectivism in Language: Its Effects on Valid Reasoning" at:http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html, and BTW, Ludwig von Mises
> himself made much the same point (see for example my critique at:http://blog.mises.org/9840/the-principle-of-methodological-individual...).
Excellent point about "we" and no direct link between meritocracy and
libertarianism.
However I do not see that libertarianism is opposed to meritocracy.
The next closest may be plutocracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy.
My understanding is that robust property and economic rights are
central to all branches of libertarianism. I interpret this to mean
you get to keep what you earn and you will give your wealth to others
if they give you some property or service of value as you see fit.
> > The republicans genius is in adopting religion to harness those masses
> > that would otherwise not support the wealthiest few.
>
> There need not be any "wealthiest few" and in a totally free society, so
> much wealth would not be held by so few as in this severely limited
> society where most of such wealth is obtained by working in cahoot w
> the State. In a totally free and self-ordered society very few people
> would be "supporting" *anyone* else, and most certainly not anyone very
> wealthy. Perhaps you need to rethink and redefine what you mean by
> "support".
In a totally free society there MUST be some extremely wealthy few,
some very wealthy, and many with little or no wealth. Robust property
rights and economic freedom provide no way to redistribute wealth
involuntarily. If someone invents something like the Topeka search
engine with Adsense pulling in revenue from nearly every business on
the planet they will quickly become very wealthy. This person could
donate to the poor or try to teach them not to spend more than they
earn. But they are also free to buy payday lending franchises and
exponentially grow wealth at the expense of the ignorant.
> > How do we excel given that we know free markets work for everyone
>
> Again your use of "we" is incorrect. Each individual thinks, evaluates
> and acts in a uniquely different way to every other individual. You also
> need to define both "free markets" and "work for everyone" in more
> precise terms for me and other readers to be sure that we each
> understand you.
Sorry about using "we" again. Until now I never noticed this and will
try to avoid it.
Free markets are synonymous with a market economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy
"Works for everyone" as in
more freedom= more happiness:
http://164.77.202.58/LYD/Controls/Neochannels/Neo_CH3996/deploy/TP-750-More%20freedom%20More%20happiness-23-01-2006.pdf
more freedom = less violence:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2005/efw2005-2.pdf
more freedom = more wealth:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713759949
> > I believe the
> > secret is to find ways to use free markets to become more individually
> > successful.
>
> This first requires a definition of "free markets" but given a
> reasonable definition, this is not possible in the current and
> encroaching statist society without essentially getting in bed with the
> State. Instead it is time to opt out of cooperation and working within
> that State and go underground.
Well "free" has shades of grey. My understanding is Singapore and UK
are more economically free than New York. But by some definitions
Somalia would be the most free. Underground is interesting but seems
probabilistic. If you mean hide wealth from tax collection then it
can grow faster but if caught may lead to larger losses of freedom.
> > This does four things:
> > 1. Proves our thesis that free markets lead to success
>
> This first requires definitions of "free markets" and "success", but
> given reasonable such definitions it is true only when unrestricted by
> the State, so it cannot be proven within any current society on Earth.
I'm not sure why no restrictions are required to grow wealth in
lightly restricted markets?
> > 2. Increases our influence - we can support candidates,
>
> The last is supportive of the State and has no place for anyone
> attempting to bring about a truly free society.
It's hard for me to imagine a system where wealth can not buy
influence. If nothing else it can be used to support studies of
economic theories that can be used to increase influence one way or
another. Many individual decisions are based on misinformation (much
of it well crafted misinformation by those with wealth and agendas).
If wealth can create and disseminate misinformation that is used by
people making decisions, it can also be used to spread useful
information.
> > advertise, sponsor documentaries, etc
> > 3. Provides the sense of meritocracy most of us want in the first
> > place.
>
> Speak for yourself! I certainly have no desire for any meritocracy.
OK, *I* would like to see the most capable people have the most wealth
and influence and the least capable have the least wealth and
influence. With capable defined as most altruistic, intelligent,
educated, prudent, experienced, wise, etc.
>
> > 4. Demonstrates to others that it works
>
> > How much is enough? Just for personal freedom $10M may be adequate,
>
> Again you need to define what you mean by "freedom". Under my definition
> of "freedom (as Available Actions) I certainly have no need for any such
> assets to have adequate actions available to me (to the extent that they
> have been brought into existence - which is the real problem). As for
> Liberty, in the current society even large amounts of money will no
> longer buy an adequate amount of it.
Available actions are limited by wealth. I have enough money to
travel to ANY major city in the world this weekend right now. But not
enough to travel to EVERY major city in the world. Wealth is an easy
metric for freedom.
What is the metric for liberty? Who has the most?
I think there is a lot of misery caused by people not spending enough
time thinking about how to grow wealth.
Thanks for challenging me!
Jay
Paul Wakfer
> Paul,
>
> Thanks for letting me participate.
And thank you for not taking my well-intentioned, sincere but frank
critique as a personal insult causing you to refuse to respond and/or go
off in a huff, as so many have done before on other venues.
> On Mar 31, 1:37 pm, Paul Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
>
>> 1) What evidence do you have that libertarianism "attracts the most self
>> sufficient intelligent capable people"? If you have any, then provide a
>> link and if you do not then at least describe by what logic based on
>> what facts you arrive at this conclusion. In my experience that it not
>> true any more than is true for many other ideologies. In fact when I
>> first got involved with libertarianism over 30 years ago, it was a great
>> disappointment when I realized, after some time, that the people
>> attracted to it were of all types in intellect, education and even basic
>> morals.
>>
> Good catch! I could not find this by Topeka'ing
You got me on that one :) I first thought it might be the name of your
favorite search engine, but by Googling "Topeka", I found the joke at:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/different-kind-of-company-name.html
A web search clearly shows that this was Google's April Fools Joke -
playing on Topeka Kansas mayor's March 2 issuing a proclamation for the
city to be renamed "Google, Kansas � the capital city of fiber optics�
for the entire month of March. This was in an attempt to lure the
company to Topeka -
http://searchengineland.com/topeka-changes-name-to-google-kansas-37100
> and just one mention
> that Mensa members are disproportionately Libertarian
I am somewhat surprised at that, but the major problem is with the
definition and measure of "intelligence". There are many diverse and
very different kinds of "intelligence". IQ is but a very poor measure of
only one kind, not even the most important by my evaluation. As for
Mensa members, from what I have seen of them (not very much, however) I
think they have little practical wisdom and are more interested in Mensa
as a method to bolster ego for people who otherwise feel very
unsuccessful and generally have low self-esteem. For those reasons,
although I am certain that I would pass, I have never been interested in
becoming a Mensan.
> but nor reference
> so perhaps I'm not the only one to make this assumption. Do
> you have a link showing that libertarian intelligence has the same
> distribution as non-libertarians?
I have never read anything about this. I am only judging from my
experience of 30+ years (but not very continuous) with libertarians.
OTOH, I would agree that by some measure of intelligence those who call
themselves libertarian (not exactly the same as truly *being* and fully
*acting* according to libertarian ideology - which also is very hard to
exactly define) are likely above average, if only because they have been
able to somewhat escape the traditional thinking inculcated by the brain
washing of schools, parents and media.
Kitty points out that: Without evidence to the contrary - such as a
stated group's membership requirements, or with groups specifically
defined as having a certain characteristic eg certain hair color,
religion, name, etc - the reasonable assumption to make is that a group
is fairly representative of the larger society as a whole, in all
characteristics except those explicitly related to those defining
membership requirements/characteristics.
>> 2) Who is this "we" who wants "society to be a meritocracy"? I have
>> never heard *any* libertarian say s/he wants a meritocracy. In fact the
>> very notion of *any* "cracy" (ruling group) is contrary to all
>> fundamentals of libertarianism, even for the inconsistent minimal
>> governmentalists. So again you will need to provide some evidence for
>> such a statement or a very different definition of what you meant when
>> you used "meritocracy" (in which case you should stop using that word
>> since it literally means "rule by the most capable and able"). Relative
>> to the use of "we" in most cases, I strongly suggest that you read my
>> essay "Collectivism in Language: Its Effects on Valid Reasoning" at:http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html, and BTW, Ludwig von Mises
>> himself made much the same point (see for example my critique at:http://blog.mises.org/9840/the-principle-of-methodological-individual...).
>>
> Excellent point about "we" and no direct link between meritocracy and
> libertarianism.
>
> However I do not see that libertarianism is opposed to meritocracy.
> The next closest may be plutocracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy.
It is not a good idea to rely on Wikipedia for unbiased definitions,
particularly political ones. However even Wikipedia states right up
front that "*Meritocracy* is a system of a government" ie a type of
"cracy" or "rule by some over others" which libertarianism is
fundamentally against. What most libertarians are saying these days is
that the only and essential unifying principle of libertarianism is the
"Non-Aggression Principle" - see: http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html
Although as I have pointed out many times many places (and still never
received a response by any libertarian of high stature in the movement),
this principle is ambiguous, inconsistent and incomplete. It is
therefore totally insufficient as the foundation for any social
philosophy and is a major reason why libertarianism, as it stands, is
not acceptable to so many thinking people (including me).
> My understanding is that robust property and economic rights are
> central to all branches of libertarianism.
That is true except that no one calling hirself a libertarian has a
consistent and complete definition and description of the meaning of
"property and economic rights" nor an adequate foundational derivation
of the source of these.
> I interpret this to mean
> you get to keep what you earn and you will give your wealth to others
> if they give you some property or service of value as you see fit.
Under reasonable definitions of the words in your statement ("earn",
"give" and "value" are somewhat ambiguous), and subject to the
limitations of existing Valid Contracts, your "interpretation" is
correct and I agree that it is also valid in any truly free society. But
what relevance has this to "meritocracy"?
>>> The republicans genius is in adopting religion to harness those masses
>>> that would otherwise not support the wealthiest few.
>>>
>> There need not be any "wealthiest few" and in a totally free society, so
>> much wealth would not be held by so few as in this severely limited
>> society where most of such wealth is obtained by working in cahoot w
>> the State. In a totally free and self-ordered society very few people
>> would be "supporting" *anyone* else, and most certainly not anyone very
>> wealthy. Perhaps you need to rethink and redefine what you mean by
>> "support".
>>
> In a totally free society there MUST be some extremely wealthy few,
> some very wealthy, and many with little or no wealth.
I do not agree with you. I think that the distribution of wealth in a
truly free society would be far less extreme than in current statist
societies. The wealthy can increase their wealth tremendously by having
the money and power to get around and get favors from the State. The
poor have no real incentive to do anything to gain more wealth. In a
truly free society the vast majority of people will have a very adequate
amount of wealth, a few will remain poor, but the numbers of such will
constantly decrease over time and yes, a few of the extreme producers of
wealth will be very rich, as they should be.
> Robust property
> rights and economic freedom provide no way to redistribute wealth
> involuntarily.
Which is why they are fundamental for any truly free society, given the
optimal definitions and processes involving them.
> If someone invents something like the Topeka search
> engine with Adsense pulling in revenue from nearly every business on
> the planet they will quickly become very wealthy.
Not so, because in a truly free society there will be far more easy
competition. In addition, I do not think the more rational people in
such a society will be nearly as amenable to advertising as are those
gullibles in the current society. What you are missing is that in order
for a truly free and totally non-government self-ordered society (such
as that described at http://selfsip.org) to come to exist will require
an enormous change in the basic thinking, evaluating and acting of its
members, from the vast majority of those in any current society.
> This person could
> donate to the poor or try to teach them not to spend more than they
> earn.
People will already need to have learned to earn sufficient to live well
and to act responsibly in all ways, in order to reach such a free
society. That is why it is not going to happen for a generation, at
least. Few of the current irresponsible people will be able to change
and only some of the current young will ultimately be part of it.
> But they are also free to buy payday lending franchises and
> exponentially grow wealth at the expense of the ignorant.
Already answered. Such ignorant people will not be in a truly free
society. It cannot come about with any large number of such people in it.
>>> How do we excel given that we know free markets work for everyone
>>>
>> Again your use of "we" is incorrect. Each individual thinks, evaluates
>> and acts in a uniquely different way to every other individual. You also
>> need to define both "free markets" and "work for everyone" in more
>> precise terms for me and other readers to be sure that we each
>> understand you.
>>
> Sorry about using "we" again. Until now I never noticed this and will
> try to avoid it.
Thanks. I really appreciate your understanding and accepting my point. I
hope that you will now be attuned to its distortional usage elsewhere
and will endeavor to correct yourself and others in this regard.
> Free markets are synonymous with a market economy:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy
Again Wikipedia is not a good source for any such definition. But mainly
the problem is that since all "market economies" that have ever existed
were within a society ruled by a State, you will not find a good
definition except possibly from an economist of the Austrian School like
at: http://mises.org In my consistent and complete social system
explicated at htttp://selfsip.org I have not defined any such term (nor
"free market" for that matter) because I don't need it to describe any
social processes. The valid and beneficial underlying process of their
meaning are not possible to circumvent under my system.
> "Works for everyone" as in
> more freedom= more happiness:
> http://164.77.202.58/LYD/Controls/Neochannels/Neo_CH3996/deploy/TP-750-More%20freedom%20More%20happiness-23-01-2006.pdf
That is coming close, but Freedom is not equivalent to happiness and
Lifetime Happiness is much more complete than mere happiness (which is
hard to differentiate from hedonism). In addition, "works for everyone"
needs to relate to the ability of everyone to optimally increase hir
Lifetime Happiness *all at the same time* (ie without conflicts - which
can be done - to find out how read "Social Meta-Needs
<http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html#Maslow>: A New
Basis for Optimal Interaction" at:
http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html).
> more freedom = less violence:
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2005/efw2005-2.pdf
This only follows for those people who learn to be self-responsible.
Many people today would be more violent if given more freedom to do so.
But in any case, in more general terms it is Violations with which one
needs to be concerned and particularly with full Restitution for all such.
> more freedom = more wealth:
> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713759949
This generally follows from the Available Actions definition of Freedom,
but it really depends on one's evaluation of just what is "wealth" and
whether all the effort to gain it will actually optimally increase one's
Lifetime Happiness.
>>> I believe the
>>> secret is to find ways to use free markets to become more individually
>>> successful.
>>>
>> This first requires a definition of "free markets" but given a
>> reasonable definition, this is not possible in the current and
>> encroaching statist society without essentially getting in bed with the
>> State. Instead it is time to opt out of cooperation and working within
>> that State and go underground.
>>
> Well "free" has shades of grey.
Only if one is a pragmatist operating in one of the current societies. I
am not interested in any such, but seek to first define an ideal, fully
possible future society and then to influence a sufficient number of
people to work to achieve it.
> My understanding is Singapore and UK
> are more economically free than New York. But by some definitions
> Somalia would be the most free. Underground is interesting but seems
> probabilistic. If you mean hide wealth from tax collection then it
> can grow faster but if caught may lead to larger losses of freedom.
This discussion is so far off topic now that it is no longer of any
interest to me. So I will only comment sporadically on the rest.
>>> This does four things:
>>> 1. Proves our thesis that free markets lead to success
>>>
>> This first requires definitions of "free markets" and "success", but
>> given reasonable such definitions it is true only when unrestricted by
>> the State, so it cannot be proven within any current society on Earth.
>>
> I'm not sure why no restrictions are required to grow wealth in
> lightly restricted markets?
>
>
>>> 2. Increases our influence - we can support candidates,
>>>
>> The last is supportive of the State and has no place for anyone
>> attempting to bring about a truly free society.
>>
> It's hard for me to imagine a system where wealth can not buy
> influence.
Imagine a society where there are no institutions or authorities to
influence - where every exchange is fully informed and totally
voluntary. Remember that "influence" can only be negative in a society
which has government/ruler enforcers and/or great irrationality.
Otherwise the word "influence" can only be the same as logical/rational
persuasion, which is always an educational/informative and therefore
beneficial activity.
> If nothing else it can be used to support studies of
> economic theories that can be used to increase influence one way or
> another. Many individual decisions are based on misinformation (much
> of it well crafted misinformation by those with wealth and agendas).
> If wealth can create and disseminate misinformation that is used by
> people making decisions, it can also be used to spread useful
> information.
>
>
>>> advertise, sponsor documentaries, etc
>>> 3. Provides the sense of meritocracy most of us want in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>> Speak for yourself! I certainly have no desire for any meritocracy.
>>
> OK, *I* would like to see the most capable people have the most wealth
> and influence and the least capable have the least wealth and
> influence.
And *I* want to see (and I have designed) a society where no "influence"
(of the type of which you speak) is possible - one in which the only
influence is by rational persuasion and Social Preferencing.
> With capable defined as most altruistic,
Here we are on totally different wavelengths, since I regard any truly
altruistic person as one who is totally irrational and I want nothing to
do with hir.
> intelligent,
> educated, prudent, experienced, wise, etc.
>
>>> 4. Demonstrates to others that it works
>>>
>>> How much is enough? Just for personal freedom $10M may be adequate,
>>>
>> Again you need to define what you mean by "freedom". Under my definition
>> of "freedom (as Available Actions) I certainly have no need for any such
>> assets to have adequate actions available to me (to the extent that they
>> have been brought into existence - which is the real problem). As for
>> Liberty, in the current society even large amounts of money will no
>> longer buy an adequate amount of it.
>>
> Available actions are limited by wealth. I have enough money to
> travel to ANY major city in the world this weekend right now. But not
> enough to travel to EVERY major city in the world. Wealth is an easy
> metric for freedom.
>
> What is the metric for liberty? Who has the most?
>
> I think there is a lot of misery caused by people not spending enough
> time thinking about how to grow wealth.
>
> Thanks for challenging me!
This will be end of this thread. If you wish to respond to any of the
other threads you are welcome. However I strongly suggest (and will
later insist) that you read deeply of the material at http://selfsip.org
before doing so. Comments, questions and reasoned critiques - with
quotes - of my SelfSIP writings have been made in the past on the Yahoo
group MoreLife and you are welcome to make them there. I will soon be
starting another blog where such will be reposted to get around the poor
search of such groups by most search engines.