Freedom to choose
SASI SA School of Individualism
I am hoping to publish this article shortly. I would really appreciate any comments or criticisms.
Freedom to choose
Trevor Watkins 10/3/25
3 levels of thinking about prosperity
What is the best way to prosper in this life?
Overwhelm your enemies and take their resources. Become an all powerful state. Resist change. Control everything.
This is level 1 thinking, and it has applied for millenia
What is the best way to prosper in this life, sustainably?
Cooperate with your competitors, trade your resources, and achieve prosperity together. This is a market economy in a democratic half powerful state.
This is level 2 thinking. It has applied for the last 3 centuries, and applies currently in the west.
What is the best way to prosper in this life, independently?
Avoid enemies and competitors. Define your own prosperity. Convince others to support you. This individual-based stateless approach is defined and recommended here.
This is level 3 thinking, but is not widespread or popular, yet.
How do you achieve level 3 prosperity? By understanding that it is different for each individual, that it is made of a myriad of spontaneous individual choices, and that we should embrace the differences that result.
Why do we need a different approach, a new philosophy?
The West is immersed in statist and level 2 thinking that does not serve the needs or interests of the modern individual.
What do individuals want?
Life. Without which it is all pointless.
Apart from the threat of conscription, war, wrongful prosecution, endemic crime, most states will let you live.
Peace There are at least 10 active conflicts currently
The existing world order does not promote peace. War threatens the life and happiness of many individuals, although it can be profitable for some.
Family The safety and wellbeing of family is paramount for most individuals.
Compulsory state education, medical mandates,unwanted social services, these threaten the integrity of families
Choice Individual choice is the basis of freedom.
Regulations limit choices, elections are a joke, even bad choices should be your choice.
Consent Western society is based on the consent of the governed.
No harm should come to an individual if they do not consent.
Respect The state does not respect its citizens
Individuals are forced to respect the state. Ministerial titles and privileges. Court procedures. Fear of law enforcement.
Property Is the basis of wealth, security, legacy.
Taxation, tariffs, fines allow the state to purloin your property. You own nothing completely. Without secure property you cannot build capital and prosper.
Justice should be blind, fair, swift
Justice is often delayed, expensive, biased, time consuming, sometimes denied. Individuals are the purpose of the justice system.
Add to this list as you see fit.
What are the level 3 principles?
A principle is a fundamental truth that serves as the foundation for a system of behaviour. It should be consistent, non-contradictory and reflect reality (see appendix 2 below). Your choice of principles will determine your level of thinking.
Individual life is sacred.
Individual choice is respected.
Individual consent is always required.
Individual property is respected.
Initiation of force is forbidden, except in self-defense.
Individual justice is underwritten and guaranteed by the community
These principles are the basis for a level 3 society.
Rights and Rules
Rights are downstream of principles. How do the above principles translate into rules to live by?
There is no death penalty. No one may take your life except you.
An individual may choose to do anything that does not infringe these rules.
Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense. (Known as the HarmConsentRule HCR)
Respect the rights of others to justly acquired property.
Disputes will be resolved by a jury of peers selected by mutual agreement of both parties.
What is absent from these rules
Democracy - a majority of a community may not override the rights of an individual.
Fuzzy obligations such as equality, kindness, charity, equity, diversity, inclusion.
References to religions.
References to the state.
References to state institutions such as police, army, judiciary.
References to education, health, social grants, business development. All these benefits can only be obtained at the expense of another.
How will this work in practice?
No one may take your life except you.
No one may decide what you eat or drink or wear or inject or do to yourself.
No one may tax you without your consent. Without taxation the nation state will wither away.
No one may impose regulations upon you without your consent.
No one may decide how you use your property unless it affects them directly.
You may defend yourself with vigour against anyone acting against you.
Disputes will be resolved by juries of your fellows, with up to three appeals.
Providing aid and assistance to your fellows is a personal moral decision, not an obligation.
Conclusion
What are the obligations of an individual in a free world? To render no harm without consent except in self-defense.
What are the rights of an individual in a free world? To suffer no harm without consent except if you coerce others.
Most individuals have limited control over how things are, but they can influence how things ought to be.
Appendix 1 - Definitions
Freedom of speech: Words do not physically affect others and so the consent of others is not required before speaking, except in the case of fraud.
Harm: For an action resulting in harm against another to require the consent of the other, then that action must be immediate in time and space, must have significant consequences for the other, and must have physical reality.
Consent: The request for consent and the subsequent action must be within a reasonable time and distance of each other. Consent given now does not imply ongoing consent into the future. Consent given in one place does not imply consent in all places. Consent for an action is not required from people far removed from the consequences of that action, in space or time.
Fraud: If your fraudulent words or actions may physically affect another then you must request consent.
Age of consent: Some individuals, such as very young children or the insane or unconscious, are incapable of informed consent. In that case they are considered as the wards and property of a consenting individual, or unowned. If ownership is challenged (by anyone), the decision on ownership must be taken by a duly appointed jury. If an individual is considered unowned, by themselves or by anyone else, then they may have to rely on the charity and intervention of their peers.
Democracy: Voting is a useful mechanism for determining the opinion of a majority. However it gives no authority to any group to harm an individual without their consent.
The Greater Good: Some actions are considered so overwhelmingly good for society that their performance overrides any individual objections (for example, vaccination, environmental preservation (eg global warming), terrorist apprehension). This argument is inevitably the top of a slippery slope, on which all manner of further consent violations are justified. This argument should be rejected.
Grey areas: Any discussion of human interactions is bound to involve many grey areas which will be resolved by a jury of one’s peers..
Appendix 2 - identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle
Every decent principle should obey the 3 traditional laws described by Bertrand Russell - the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle.
Identity
What is, is. A is A. Words have definite and specific meanings.Non-contradiction
Two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.Excluded middle
Nothing can both be true and false simultaneously.
When defining your principles, they must adhere to the laws above, or risk being dismissed as nonsense.
There is no shortage of principles to guide your life.
Democracy - rule by the majority is “just”.
It fails rule 3 - democracy may not be “just” for the minority.
Utilitarianism - The greatest good for the greatest number.
It also fails rule 3 - it does not include the good for the lesser number.
Religion - just have faith in God(s)
It fails rule 1 - God cannot be defined
Do as you would be done by -
It fails rule 1 - requires knowledge of something that is unknowable.
Might makes right -
Does not fail any of the 3 rules.
Human life is paramount -
Does not fail any of the 3 rules.
Equality is paramount -
It fails rule 1 - it is a state, not a thing.
Freedom is paramount -
It fails rule 1 - it is a state, not a thing.
Sid Nothard
Hello Trevor
I have a long list, and I am having difficulty where to start.
How to Prosper:
Unless one inherits or marries into money there is only one way to prosper, and that is by rational thinking.
This usually has to take place in a free market economy (which all Libertarians hanker for)
However. The dominating feature of a free market is relentless competition – there is no escaping it. This is
what keeps all the players in line and forces innovation. It makes one have to get up early, and keep going after
all the others are sleeping. Remove completion and the free market fails.
What do individuals want.
Well, they want a lot of things, but very few are prepared to do what they need to.
All are trapped in the matrix - they bleat and whine, but very few are prepared to forego their investment in
the matrix and break free. The majority of humans want to be told what to do, and hence their grim attachment to
politics and religion (Both branches of philosophy)
All political systems are based on Plato’s vision of how things should work. The almighty state is paramount, run by
the elite who know what is best for their subjects, and tells them what to do. Politicians do NOT have any respect
for its citizens, they are only in it for short-term gain.
Politicians are parasites. They have to live off the productive class, otherwise they will die. This parasitic mindset is what
most people do not understand. They think that the government has concern for their interests, but they are woefully mistaken.
Until that system is replaced by the Aristotolean system in which the smallest unit, the individual, is the most important there
will be little progress. This is where individual rights are protected, which means all rights are protected. But then people have to
think for themselves and take self-responsibility. And that is what they are most terrified about.
As for defending oneself – impossible to do against someone with a bigger club or bank balance than yours.
More to come……..
Sid Nothard cSASI
1. Individual life is sacred.
2. Individual choice is respected.
3. Individual consent is always required.
4. Individual property is respected.
5. Initiation of force is forbidden, except in self-defense.
6. Individual justice is underwritten and guaranteed by the community
These principles are the basis for a level 3 society.
Rights and Rules
Rights are downstream of principles. How do the above principles translate into rules to live by?
1. There is no death penalty. No one may take your life except you.
2. An individual may choose to do anything that does not infringe these rules.
3. Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense. (Known as the HarmConsentRule HCR)
4. Respect the rights of others to justly acquired property.
5. Disputes will be resolved by a jury of peers selected by mutual agreement of both parties.
What is absent from these rules
1. Democracy - a majority of a community may not override the rights of an individual.
2. Fuzzy obligations such as equality, kindness, charity, equity, diversity, inclusion.
3. References to religions.
4. References to the state.
5. References to state institutions such as police, army, judiciary.
6. References to education, health, social grants, business development. All these benefits can only be obtained at the expense of another.
How will this work in practice?
1. No one may take your life except you.
2. No one may decide what you eat or drink or wear or inject or do to yourself.
3. No one may tax you without your consent. Without taxation the nation state will wither away.
4. No one may impose regulations upon you without your consent.
5. No one may decide how you use your property unless it affects them directly.
6. You may defend yourself with vigour against anyone acting against you.
7. Disputes will be resolved by juries of your fellows, with up to three appeals.
8. Providing aid and assistance to your fellows is a personal moral decision, not an obligation.
Conclusion
What are the obligations of an individual in a free world? To render no harm without consent except in self-defense.
What are the rights of an individual in a free world? To suffer no harm without consent except if you coerce others.
Most individuals have limited control over how things are, but they can influence how things ought to be.
Appendix 1 - Definitions
Freedom of speech: Words do not physically affect others and so the consent of others is not required before speaking, except in the case of fraud.
Harm: For an action resulting in harm against another to require the consent of the other, then that action must be immediate in time and space, must have significant consequences for the other, and must have physical reality.
Consent: The request for consent and the subsequent action must be within a reasonable time and distance of each other. Consent given now does not imply ongoing consent into the future. Consent given in one place does not imply consent in all places. Consent for an action is not required from people far removed from the consequences of that action, in space or time.
Fraud: If your fraudulent words or actions may physically affect another then you must request consent.
Age of consent: Some individuals, such as very young children or the insane or unconscious, are incapable of informed consent. In that case they are considered as the wards and property of a consenting individual, or unowned. If ownership is challenged (by anyone), the decision on ownership must be taken by a duly appointed jury. If an individual is considered unowned, by themselves or by anyone else, then they may have to rely on the charity and intervention of their peers.
Democracy: Voting is a useful mechanism for determining the opinion of a majority. However it gives no authority to any group to harm an individual without their consent.
The Greater Good: Some actions are considered so overwhelmingly good for society that their performance overrides any individual objections (for example, vaccination, environmental preservation (eg global warming), terrorist apprehension). This argument is inevitably the top of a slippery slope, on which all manner of further consent violations are justified. This argument should be rejected.
Grey areas: Any discussion of human interactions is bound to involve many grey areas which will be resolved by a jury of one’s peers..
Appendix 2 - identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle
Every decent principle should obey the 3 traditional laws described by Bertrand Russell - the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle.
1. Identity
What is, is. A is A. Words have definite and specific meanings.
2. Non-contradiction
Two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
3. Excluded middle
Nothing can both be true and false simultaneously.
When defining your principles, they must adhere to the laws above, or risk being dismissed as nonsense.
There is no shortage of principles to guide your life.
Democracy - rule by the majority is “just”.
It fails rule 3 - democracy may not be “just” for the minority.
Utilitarianism - The greatest good for the greatest number.
It also fails rule 3 - it does not include the good for the lesser number.
Religion - just have faith in God(s)
It fails rule 1 - God cannot be defined
Do as you would be done by -
It fails rule 1 - requires knowledge of something that is unknowable.
Might makes right -
Does not fail any of the 3 rules.
Human life is paramount -
Does not fail any of the 3 rules.
Equality is paramount -
It fails rule 1 - it is a state, not a thing.
Freedom is paramount -
It fails rule 1 - it is a state, not a thing.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMmz%3DJPrchdpiX0yZxL91C1rG65yjin074RJEKiBpiP-XY70XQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/001201db92ab%247d6007f0%24782017d0%24%40mweb.co.za.
SASI SA School of Individualism
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/001201db92ab%247d6007f0%24782017d0%24%40mweb.co.za.
SASI SA School of Individualism
Good comments Sid. I would add that I don't quite get your "levels of thinking"... it feels analagous to Karl Marx's stages of capitalism - something which existed exclusively in his head. Do you have some pre-existing foundation or reference point for your "levels of thinking" that can be grounded in a known body of knowledge ? I feel like you're starting the article as if from a blank slate, which is usually not a great idea. Even the best and biggest innovations are usually based on preceding work. Actually these 3 levels came to me as I was writing. I see 3 distinct ways of thinking about the world, and this was a convenient way of expressing it. There are probably precedents, but I have not searched for them.I also disagree with your statements under what people want w.r.t. family... the things you mention are bad, but not necessarily because they break down the family or have anything to do with family. As someone who has moved to the other side of the planet, I can also tell you that family is nice, but wholly optional to survival. Its your family who look after when you are old or sick or poor in contradiction of all the self-sufficiency we so favour. There are some things that some people want even more. The main issue though is that it is not clear how those examples impact a family... if such a thing is important.Choice is problematic too, because I know what you meant and we here in our little echo chamber are likely to agree with you on that point, but I can see many people (possibly the majority) objecting to "even bad choices should be your choice". Most people do not want you to commit suicide or be a burden on their healthcare with your broken bones or to come around and burn down their house. This statement will alienate many outsiders less familiar with the philosophical nuances than us here. Point taken. Under PEACE I have added saftey, security, comfort, certainty, at the cost of self respect.
I have other comments too, but not enough time right now to write them down, sorry.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7yQX1a%2B01-5e%3DJpJ62oCGDbDVRwb7HyWvz-FrEAGWL4Q%40mail.gmail.com.