The following is the first set of a series of emails, which included WORD attachments. This written critical exchange was arranged with libertarian writer George H. Smith in the summer of 2003 as a paid critique service for the purpose of obtaining logical analysis of the philosophical basis of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project by a knowledgeable libertarian thinker. (See Link Note)
Note: In what follows the text of all the emails and the attachments which George sent is original, as written, including all typos, spelling and grammar mistakes. All George's replies included a complete copy of Paul's previous email at the bottom, but these have been omitted here for brevity. Where necessary for explanatory purposes, clarity or to make it represent the current state of the documents and within his own emails or replies to George's critique attachments, Paul has inserted some additional notes within [square brackets]. None of these were in the original text.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Request for your Services
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:24:41 -0400
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
To: ghs@thephilosophe.com
Hi George,
Just to refresh your memory of who I am:
I have known of your existence since I became a Voluntaryist at its
inception at the beginning of the 80s and have many of your writings.
Kitty and I also met and talked with you at last year's Freedom Summit
(we will be there again this year). We will see you again at the Liberty
Seminar in Orono, Ontario on Aug 9-10 weekend.
For the last several months, Kitty and I have turned our attention from
mostly health and life extension matters, to issues related to making
radical changes in the social order of the world. Our project is called
the Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org We are
*very* serious about this and have registered 15 related domain names.
We have also written at great deal about our plans, critiques of various
revered historical documents, and formulated drafts of solution
documents, much of which is already on our website and even more is in
progress.
However, although I have been a libertarian for over 25 years, began by
reading everything written by Ayn Rand about 40 year ago, and was very
active in Canadian political Libertarianism in the late 70s before I
understood the light of anarchism, I have published very little in this
area (lots more in health and life extension as first Tom Matthews - an
alias - and now Paul Wakfer). Therefore, it is nearly impossible to get
any intellectually advanced person to even take the time to read my
current work, let alone critically analyze it and help me with it.
Since I appreciate the logical analysis which you bring to your work as
shown in your writings, I am willing to pay you the retainer of $250 in
order to get you to seriously read and analyze my work. If you are
interested I would also be willing to send you a preliminary copy of the
Social Contact which is the major work that I have been in progress on
for almost 2 months now. This request does not quite fit your writing
consulting services, because I do not think that I really require any
help in analysis or in organizing and expressing my thoughts. But, of
course, I am always open to suggestions here too.
Ideally, I would send you the $250 immediately and you would read what
is available on the website http://selfsip.org before the Orono seminar
on August 9-10. Then we could take some time there to talk about it one
to one and you could of course send me written critiques, questions,
suggestions etc both before and after that weekend.
Please let me know if this meets with your approval and I will mail you
a check immediately. I work much better by email, at least, until both
parties are fully conversant with the details of what needs to be
discussed, so no phone conversation is necessary or desired at this time.
Thanks for your consideration,
--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
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Request for your Services
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:39:27 -0500
From: George H. Smith
To: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Paul,
I wanted to check out your website before responding, in
order to be sure that I would have the time to read
everything before the Orono conference. I don't see any
problem with this.
If you also want me to look over your piece on "Social
Contract" before the conference, perhaps you should send
it at least via 2-day delivery, so I have sufficient time.
We can then discuss it, or anything else you like, during
the conference.
You can send the check and the manuscript to:
George H. Smith
[street address omitted]
Bloomington, Illinois 61701
I look forward to seeing you and Kitty again.
Best,
George
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:48 PM
To: George H. Smith
Cc: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Subject: Re: Request for your Services
George H. Smith wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I wanted to check out your website before responding, in
> order to be sure that I would have the time to read
> everything before the Orono conference. I don't see any
> problem with this.
Great!
> If you also want me to look over your piece on "Social
> Contract" before the conference,
Actually it is not a "piece" in any manner. It is a very complex
contract containing 35 definition groups which attempts to set up a
framework of optimal ordering procedures for a free society which flow
naturally from the nature of individual humans in reality. I consider it
to be a consistent (and therefore basically anarchist) synthesis and
extension of Locke, Bentham and Rand.
> perhaps you should send
> it at least via 2-day delivery, so I have sufficient time.
I am not yet ready to send it to you, but when I am ready (which may not
be before the conference even) I will put it on the website with a
special name which no one else will know and you can access it directly
there. I deal in paper as little as possible these days. Although I
still prefer it for books.
[snip of private information]
> I look forward to seeing you and Kitty again.
We too.
--Paul
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:28 PM
To: George H. Smith
Cc: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Subject: Re: Request for your Services
Hi again George,
Just so that my purpose in employing you is clear.
What I need most from you is *inline* written comments, questions,
critiques and suggestions concerning what I have written. You can cut
and paste the text into any word processor and comment, question,
critique and suggest to it that way where and when necessary. Also
mostly concentrate on the annotated DOII since that is where I begin my
"solution" for an ordered anarchist society. The review and annotations
of the "revered" documents are simply to set the stage, and more gently
and related to the familiar, introduce the ideas which come into full
bloom later. This review is also to convince people that there never was
any real "promise of the American Revolution" or at least not any
promise which any of those documents and the ideas behind them could
fulfill.
If I may be so bold as to state what I desire and expect to happen.
I think that you will find much that is novel, insightful and
significant in my work. There may still be major holes that need to be
filled, but I am convinced that I am up to the job. It is my sincere
hope and my expectation that you will want to join me in the project.
Granted that you may have your own separate agenda for some time and
that it may be some time before my system is perfected, if this does not
happen eventually, then either I will concede that my project is
hopeless and that my analysis and approach is a failure OR I will be
convinced that you are simply not up to the task of understanding and
appreciating what I have accomplished.
You will better understand why I take this extremely blunt, but I think
fully realistic position, once you have read the whole Social Contract.
I decided that it was better to state this right up front so that there
is no misunderstanding.
--Paul
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Request for your Services
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:13:54 -0500
From: George H. Smith
To: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Paul,
I don't know what "the annotated DOII" is. I assume this
is one of the links on your site, but maybe you should
tell me which one.
Best,
George
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:47 PM
To: George H. Smith
Cc: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Subject: Re: Request for your Services
George H. Smith wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I don't know what "the annotated DOII" is. I assume this
> is one of the links on your site, but maybe you should
> tell me which one.
It is the annotated (explained) version of the Declaration of Individual Independence.
It is in the Section: Documents for the Achievement of Self-Sovereignty
It is the major work so far, but minor still in comparison with the Social Contract which goes much much farther.
Still it is best that you read from the top and follow the order suggested. That way you will see the developing ideas, which were in fact developing within me as I wrote and still are. They are the full consistent written development of 40 years of thought, analysis and contemplation (not all full time by any means - especially lacking during the 60s and early 70s when I had time for little except a career, family and marriage breakdown). In the writing the ideas have actually worked out quite differently than I thought they would when I began. I expect you know how that happens and have experienced it many times yourself. Thus, some things which I say in the earlier documents while not exactly wrong do not fully coincide with my viewpoint and conclusions in the later documents. Since there was no great inconsistency I left it that way on purpose because I think it is good for people so see developing ideas and perhaps then be able to understand them better in the end. I have too often read or heard presentations of ideas which are so "polished" that it is hard to understand how they came about and therefore harder to understand how they tie in with simpler and more familiar ideas.
At this time there is no need for you to read or comment on any of the sections:
Program of Implementation of the Project Goals
Freedom Dialogues and Commentaries
Focus on Freedom
of course you are always welcome to do so.
--Paul
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Request for your Services
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:00:21 -0400
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
To: George H. Smith
Hi George,
First, I need to state that I am somewhat disappointed not to have had
any response from you by this time.
On 7/30/2003 I already told you:
"Just so that my purpose in employing you is clear.
What I need most from you is *inline* written comments, questions,
critiques and suggestions concerning what I have written. You can cut
and paste the text into any word processor and comment, question,
critique and suggest to it that way where and when necessary. Also
mostly concentrate on the annotated DOII since that is where I begin my
"solution" for an ordered anarchist society. The review and annotations
of the "revered" documents are simply to set the stage, and more gently
and related to the familiar, introduce the ideas which come into full
bloom later. This review is also to convince people that there never was
any real "promise of the American Revolution" or at least not any
promise which any of those documents and the ideas behind them could
fulfill."
I fear that you did not get the full meaning and importance of this, so
I will have to state it more fully and clearly.
1) I do not work well by means of verbal discussions with people. Partly
this is because everything that I do is exceedingly detailed and every
nuance of word and phrase is important. Particularly, this work is
extremely detailed and complex, especially the Natural Social Contract.
(Note the new name to show that it is based on the nature of human
reality. In fact, the new subtitle is: "An Agreement Concerning Adult
Interpersonal Conduct for Mutual Benefit Derived from the Nature of
Human Reality".)
2) I don't think that anyone (and certainly not I) can keep a sufficient
amount of detail and ideas about anything very deep and subtle in focus
in one's consciousness at one time for extemporaneous discussions to be
very useful in my view. This is why most conversation is rightly called
"small talk". An exception to this are those times when two people are
trying to understand each other and already know very well the full
content and context of what they are discussing. Then and only then it
can be useful for them to have a dynamic conversation to iron out some
of the details, complete understandings, points of difference, etc.
3) Unless you soon respond with some comments, questions, or anything
else about my work, I am not sure that we can accomplish anything useful
by talking about it this weekend. The time is now so short (it probably
was too short when I first contacted you) that even if we do now start a
discussion, I find it difficult to see what we can accomplish by a
discussion on the weekend. This is especially the case because most of
what is likely to be said has already been greatly amplified in the
Natural Social Contract, which you of course will not have read (partly
because I still have some honing to do before I am satisfied even with a
"draft" format - although I have no problem releasing it to be read by
anyone who will not take advantage of its incompleteness or lack of
perfection to deride me. (I might note that I am a person who has
absolutely no need for personal privacy and would be happy to have a
completely open brain and live in a glass house as long as no one would
use the information gained to harm me, particularly to coerce me.)
4) Regarding my requirement for inline discussion, since none of your
email replies so far have been inline (although none of them had any
great need for it), it occurred to me that you may not be totally
conversant with either the meaning or the value of "inline". This may be
the case especially if you do not take part in Internet discussion
groups. First the meaning of "inline" and second why I think that it is
so valuable and insist that anyone corresponding with me uses it:
Inline means that one replies with the full text of the message which
was sent set off in some manner to differentiate it (generally by
preceding each line with a ">" but sometime with a blue vertical bar
when in html mode). The respondent may begin with new general remarks to
set the tone or meaning of what he is then writing below. Then he breaks
the text of the message to which he is replying at the point where some
point needs a response and makes his response on a fresh new line in
between the differentiated pieces of the message to which he is
replying. For ease in reading it is best to leave a blank line at the
beginning and after the reply portion. The first time through, the
respondent should leave virtually *all* of the original text and respond
to all substantive points even if he just says "understood" or "I
agree". As the discussion proceeds portions of the old text which are no
longer needed for reference and are not under discussion can be removed
by either party in order to keep the length of the email and the level
of its "nesting" of reply text under control
Value of the Inline Method
1. The message originator knows that the respondent read everything
(this is always a courteous thing to let him know).
2. The respondent cannot simply forget to respond to something which was
said by the originator and perhaps miss it altogether or miss its
importance.
3. The respondent cannot *evade* acknowledging any points which the
originator made which he either does not wish to admit or think about.
4. The originator gets an answer to all his questions.
5. By having to respond the respondent is forced to make sure that he
really understands what the originator wrote.
6. The response will often tell the originator whether or not he was
really understood and give him a chance to supply more information to
aid more complete understanding.
In summary, I think that the easy ability for inline discussions with
email is an enormous advantage over the old paper correspondence and I
generally refuse to use anything else.
BTW, I just received and read a copy of John Hasnas' paper:
"Toward a Theory of Empirical Natural Rights".
What he has accomplished is to establish an empirical basis for natural
rights from looking at the evolution of human interpersonal social
practices (free from governments so he thinks). Thus, various human
legal-type institutions such as the English Common Law and Merchant Law
are socially evolved to preserve peace and prosperity. They form a
system very similar to Lockean natural rights, but without the need for
a postulated moral basis.
However, my system has gone one step further. My system *derives* the
stipulations of a Natural Social Contract which all rational men will
want to sign and agree with, based on a very few essential empirical
facts about the nature of man and reality.
Thus, instead of being a kind of hodge-podge of generally pragmatic
arrangements which have grown up by trial and error as Hasnas system is,
mine is a system derived from the essentials of human nature in reality.
His system it like a set of scientific data waiting for a theory to make
it all make sense. Mine is that theory which makes it all make sense!
His is like Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Mine is like Newton's law
of gravity!
--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
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Request for your Services
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:19:42 -0500
From: George H. Smith
To: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Paul,
Perhaps I did misunderstand the time frame on this
project. My plan was to spend a good part of tomorrow
(Wednesday) on it, and then email you comments by early
Thursday. Having already read the annotated DOII , I
wanted to give myself some time to reflect on the ideas
presented there before writing back to you. This is the
way I typically work, and I find it helps to minimize the
chance of making hasty, inane comments that won't be of
any value. Plus, there is an enormous amount of material
in the annotations on a wide variety of subjects. (See my
remarks below.)
To do work of any quality, I need to focus intensively on
one project at a time, rather than doing it in spurts. I
had two lectures to prepare for this weekend. I decided to
focus on these first, before turning to your material in
detail. I did this for a reason, namely, I wanted your
material to be fresh in my mind when we discuss it over
the weekend. Moreover, I didn't assume that the
forthcoming weekend discussion was necessarily a terminus,
or even a core aspect of this project. I just figured it
was essentially a way to touch bases and figure out where
we stand. (It is difficult to have sustained conversations
at an outdoor conference of this sort.) I assumed that if
there were additional things that we needed to discuss,
this could be done via email after the conference.
If time is an insurmountable problem -- and, given the
late hour, there isn't much I can do about it now --
please let me know immediately. (See my additional
suggestion below.) I apologize if this isn't what you
expected, but if it was an error on my part, it was made
in good faith.
Yes, I know what inline comments are; I have been an
active participant on various elists for a number of
years. But I don't always use this method when responding
to emails.
I now want to comment on a potential problem with the
annotated DOII. When I first wrote to you about this, I
had read the much shorter Declaration, and though I
glanced at the annotations, it somehow escaped me how long
this document is. It was only later, after printing it
out, that I realized it runs to over 30 pages. I have read
it over twice and made some marginal notations in an
effort to isolate the most essential ideas -- ones that I
can comment on in around five hours. To do a detailed
inline commentary on *every* point raised in this document
could literally take me many days, possibly a week, of
nearly full-time work.
Therefore, assuming this project goes forward, we have one
of two options: (1) I can try to cover virtually every
paragraph, which will mean that my comments will
necessarily be brief; or (2) I can bypass what I regard as
less important issues and discuss the more important ones
in greater detail. Do you have a preference?
One last thing. Since I may have screwed-up on the time, I
am willing to work on this tonight (five straight hours on
the computer is nothing for me), in which case I can email
you comments early tomorrow. Given the length of the final
product (your original plus my comments), I should
probably send this as an attachment (MS Word 2000), if
that is okay with you. Please advise.
Best,
George
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Request for your Services
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:09:50 -0400
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
To: George H. Smith
Thanks for the speedy response. I did not mean or want to be "pushing"
you in any way against your own evaluated best method of proceeding.
What you propose is completely inline with my thinking. I will answer
some specific points inline.
George H. Smith wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Perhaps I did misunderstand the time frame on this
> project. My plan was to spend a good part of tomorrow
> (Wednesday) on it, and then email you comments by early
> Thursday. Having already read the annotated DOII , I
> wanted to give myself some time to reflect on the ideas
> presented there before writing back to you. This is the
> way I typically work, and I find it helps to minimize the
> chance of making hasty, inane comments that won't be of
> any value.
This is appreciated. I do the same. I get very annoyed at people who
think that they can read something complex and immediately make any
significant response.
> Plus, there is an enormous amount of material
> in the annotations on a wide variety of subjects. (See my
> remarks below.)
But little compared with what is in the Natural Social Contract. The
annotated file is already 158k, estimated to reach 200 before the draft
is finished.
> To do work of any quality, I need to focus intensively on
> one project at a time, rather than doing it in spurts.
Again I appreciate this because I am the same.
> I
> had two lectures to prepare for this weekend. I decided to
> focus on these first, before turning to your material in
> detail. I did this for a reason, namely, I wanted your
> material to be fresh in my mind when we discuss it over
> the weekend.
Understood and appreciated.
> Moreover, I didn't assume that the
> forthcoming weekend discussion was necessarily a terminus,
> or even a core aspect of this project.
Good.
> I just figured it
> was essentially a way to touch bases and figure out where
> we stand.
As long as you have gone over it thoroughly and sent me something back
to let me know some of your thoughts on it, then I think we can
profitably discuss some things. My biggest concern at this time is that
[with my Natural Social Contract] I am by now already far beyond what
you have seen, so it may be hard to discuss things when there is so much
related detail of the implementation of things in that document.
> (It is difficult to have sustained conversations
> at an outdoor conference of this sort.)
It certainly is.
> I assumed that if
> there were additional things that we needed to discuss,
> this could be done via email after the conference.
I certainly hope so.
> If time is an insurmountable problem -- and, given the
> late hour, there isn't much I can do about it now --
> please let me know immediately. (See my additional
> suggestion below.) I apologize if this isn't what you
> expected, but if it was an error on my part, it was made
> in good faith.
No need to apologize. However, a quick note to tell me of your plans
vis-a-vis the timing would have helped head off the misunderstanding.
> Yes, I know what inline comments are; I have been an
> active participant on various elists for a number of
> years. But I don't always use this method when responding
> to emails.
Unfortunately, I have met some people on the Internet who I thought were
pretty intelligent that still did not understand the advantages of
inline responses (either that or they just like to be able to evade! I
could never tell which.)
I wasn't sure since I have not seen you on any lists, but then I have
not been looking at many which would be relevant to your interests until
just recently. Which lists are you on?
> I now want to comment on a potential problem with the
> annotated DOII. When I first wrote to you about this, I
> had read the much shorter Declaration, and though I
> glanced at the annotations, it somehow escaped me how long
> this document is. It was only later, after printing it
> out, that I realized it runs to over 30 pages. I have read
> it over twice and made some marginal notations in an
> effort to isolate the most essential ideas -- ones that I
> can comment on in around five hours. To do a detailed
> inline commentary on *every* point raised in this document
> could literally take me many days, possibly a week, of
> nearly full-time work.
>
> Therefore, assuming this project goes forward, we have one
> of two options: (1) I can try to cover virtually every
> paragraph, which will mean that my comments will
> necessarily be brief; or (2) I can bypass what I regard as
> less important issues and discuss the more important ones
> in greater detail. Do you have a preference?
Probably the latter. I am most interested in holes in my logic. I have
little interest in whether I am historically complete or even fully
accurate.
Unfortunately, Kitty and I have to live very frugally. Although I have
no doubt of the value of your critique of this project, paying you the
$250 is all that I can afford. If you are not sufficiently interested to
join in gratis after you read my Natural Social Contract then I will
have to proceed alone and/or find others.
> One last thing. Since I may have screwed-up on the time, I
> am willing to work on this tonight (five straight hours on
> the computer is nothing for me), in which case I can email
> you comments early tomorrow. Given the length of the final
> product (your original plus my comments), I should
> probably send this as an attachment (MS Word 2000), if
> that is okay with you. Please advise.
MSWord 2000 is OK
--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
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
|
|
|
