The following is an email exchange between Paul Wakfer and a representative of a news service to which he was a subscriber and came to realize was a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization under the US Internal Revenue System. Paul's two sentence notice to cancel his subscription was returned with a lengthy justification for the group's action. In his response, Paul countered all the "justifications" and let the representative know that the exchange would be included on the Self-SIP website (without names), to which the writer replied at length, considering her statements "solicited" and "private". Paul's final message, to which there was no further reply, points out the writer's logical inconsistencies. The complete exchange is below.
7/1/05 FOLLOW-UP: The individual and her organization in this email exchange had purposely been left unnamed (except for our inadvertent error of leaving in her first name within Paul's opening friendly salutation to her in his first response). Nothing more would have been added to this page had not the writer of the emails below, now a libertarian blogger of some renown, Sunni Maravillosa, not taken the action she did as described at: Exchange Demonstrating Philosophical Inconsistency of a Libertarian Blogger
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:11:23 -0400
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer paul@morelife.org
Organization: MoreLife
To: feedback@xxxxx-xxxxxxx.net
Please cancel my subscription.
I do not wish to deal with any 501(c)(3) organization.
--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
Subject: Re: XXX Unsubscribe
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:49:33 -0500
From: Representative
To: "Paul Antonik Wakfer" paul@morelife.org
On 7/2/2003, at 6:11 PM, Paul Antonik Wakfer emailed me:
Dear Mr. Wakfer,
>Please cancel my subscription.
>I do not wish to deal with any 501(c)(3) organization.
I have unsubscribed you from Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx. And while I understand
your desire not to affiliate with "any 501(c)(3) organization", I'd
like to respectfully request that you reconsider that move.
I know that having tax-exempt status puts 501(c)(3) organizations under
the thumbscrews of the IRS in some ways, and "in bed" with the enemy as
well -- and we at XXN do not care for either of those situations
ourselves. There are many reasons why we have kept this status; I'd
like to share just two with you. They probably apply to many other
pro-freedom organizations as well.
First, our decision to be a 501(c)(3) organization is a tactical one,
based in large part on economic reality. Most individuals simply do not
support non-charitable organizations as much as they do 501(c)(3)s. For
online entities such as Xxxx-Xxxxxx.Net, getting support can be even
more challenging, as even many supposedly free-market individuals think
that they're "entitled" to web content for free. So, as much as we
dislike it, we retain 501(c)(3) status because that's what most
individuals tend to support. We simply cannot do what we do otherwise
right now. We wish that were not the case.
Second, by being tax-exempt we're able to use more of our support
toward what we do best -- promoting freedom worldwide so that
increasing numbers of individuals can see the benefits of liberty and
cast off their chains, both personal and state-imposed. We take delight
in using our tax status to advocate for the abolition of the state
that supports it, and I know that a good number of other pro-freedom
charitable organizations' officers feel similarly.
Many individuals and organizations choose different paths and tactics
in their efforts to educate and advocate for greater freedom. Even
though our choices may not mesh, we're still working for the same goal
-- liberty. I thus hope that you will not let our tactical decision
overshadow the value of our work for people around the world.
Sincerely,
Representative
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rep Representative
Director of Operations, xxxx-xxxxxx.Net
office@xxxx-xxxxxx.net
Representative wrote:
> On 7/2/2003, at 6:11 PM, Paul Antonik Wakfer emailed me:
> Dear Mr. Wakfer,
>>Please cancel my subscription.
>>I do not wish to deal with any 501(c)(3) organization.
> I have unsubscribed you from Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx. And while I understand
> your desire not to affiliate with "any 501(c)(3) organization", I'd
> like to respectfully request that you reconsider that move.
Hi Sunni,
Thank you for your courtesy in replying.
Please see my comments below.
> I know that having tax-exempt status puts 501(c)(3) organizations under
> the thumbscrews of the IRS in some ways, and "in bed" with the enemy as
> well -- and we at XXN do not care for either of those situations
> ourselves. There are many reasons why we have kept this status; I'd
> like to share just two with you. They probably apply to many other
> pro-freedom organizations as well.
>
> First, our decision to be a 501(c)(3) organization is a tactical one,
> based in large part on economic reality.
Tactical *wrongs* will never win a war for "right".
That "reality" is a government *distorted* one and it is exactly what
must be changed rather than "adhered" to.
> Most individuals simply do not
> support non-charitable organizations as much as they do 501(c)(3)s.
And XXN should be part of the effort to change this attitude in freedom
seekers by showing them why they are wrong to support any 501(c)(3).
> For online entities such as Xxxx-Xxxxxx.Net, getting support can be even
> more challenging, as even many supposedly free-market individuals think
> that they're "entitled" to web content for free.
Again you should be part of the movement to change such irrational
thinking rather than to acquiese to and support it.
> So, as much as we
> dislike it, we retain 501(c)(3) status because that's what most
> individuals tend to support.
That is because they are not being guided to the reasons why this is
wrong thinking and acting from a pro-freedom viewpoint.
> We simply cannot do what we do otherwise
> right now. We wish that were not the case.
What you mean is that you cannot do otherwise with the ease and at the
level to which you are accustomed. However, if you have not really
tried, how do you know? RRND is not a 501(c)(3) and provides as good or
better a daily digest, which is what I am after most. I voluntarily pay
them $60 per year for it.
> Second, by being tax-exempt we're able to use more of our support
> toward what we do best -- promoting freedom worldwide so that
> increasing numbers of individuals can see the benefits of liberty and
> cast off their chains, both personal and state-imposed.
This is misleading at best (which is typical of those who do not have
the courage and full principle of their convictions). Being 501(c)(3)
does not enable you to "use more of [your] support". You may think that
it enables you to *have* more money to support such efforts, but you
don't know that and furthermore your actual support for freedom would be
far greater if you eschewed that status. Slaves do not cast off their
chains by remaing dependent on their masters.
> We take delight
> in using our tax status to advocate for the abolition of the state
> that supports it, and I know that a good number of other pro-freedom
> charitable organizations' officers feel similarly.
It is a falsely placed "delight". At best it is pure rationalization.
Actually it is consorting with and supporting the enemy.
> Many individuals and organizations choose different paths and tactics
> in their efforts to educate and advocate for greater freedom.
Wrong can never be a different path to right!
> Even though our choices may not mesh, we're still working for the same goal
> -- liberty.
No! That may be your *intention*, but it is not what the *action* of
being a 501(c)(3) accomplishes.
> I thus hope that you will not let our tactical decision
> overshadow the value of our work for people around the world.
As I said before, tactical mistakes are still mistakes and still reduce
the overall effort needed to win the battle.
> Sincerely,
>
> Representative
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Rep Representative
> Director of Operations, xxxx-xxxxxx.Net
Can you really feel "clean" and retain your self-esteem (by knowing that
you are producing value for which you would be paid in a truly free
market) by continuing to work for a 501(c)(3)?
PS. We will be publishing this dialogue (without your name) on our
website in our section: "Freedom Dialogues".
--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
Subject: Re: XXX Unsubscribe because of 501(c)(3) status
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:38:21 -0500
From: Representative
To: "Paul Antonik Wakfer" paul@morelife.org
On 7/9/2003, at 3:02 PM, Paul Antonik Wakfer emailed me:
Dear Mr. Wakfer,
As we appear to have fairly strong and differing opinions on the
subject of 501(c)(3) organizations, I will not engage further on the
discussion. I do respect your views.
>PS. We will be publishing this dialogue (without your name) on our
>website in our section: "Freedom Dialogues".
I did not respond to you with the understanding that this was a public
exchange, or would be made public. I thought it was a private exchange
between two individuals and respectfully ask that it remain so.
Sincerely,
Representative
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rep Representative
Director of Operations, Xxxx-Xxxxxx.Net
Representative wrote:
> On 7/9/2003, at 3:02 PM, Paul Antonik Wakfer emailed me:
> Dear Mr. Wakfer,
> As we appear to have fairly strong and differing opinions on the
> subject of 501(c)(3) organizations, I will not engage further on the
> discussion. I do respect your views.
>>PS. We will be publishing this dialogue (without your name) on our
>>website in our section: "Freedom Dialogues".
> I did not respond to you with the understanding that this was a public
> exchange, or would be made public. I thought it was a private exchange
> between two individuals and respectfully ask that it remain so.
This also says something about you and your views (personally). I do not
accept anyone as being a "representative" of any group, at least not in
the realm of ideas which can only be individual - groups don't have
ideas nor do they choose and act as volitional entities.
If you truly think that what you are saying is rational and moral, then
you should be fully willing and even eager to bear public scrutiny. In
fact, you should also want to publish such a dialogue on your own
website to proudly make your points. As I have always declared, anyone
is fully at liberty to use anything which I write or say to them unless
ahead of that I make a contract with them not to do so. And that
includes the use of my name as its author. I realize that this is not
the default understanding on the WWW with respect to private email, and
for that reason I will not use your personal name. However, I reject any
idea of a unilateral contract. If you send me some written material
without first getting my acceptance not to show it to others, then you
have ipso facto given it into the public domain and I may do what I want
with it so long as I am honest about where it came from. OTOH, if you
required that I promise not to do so ahead of time then I would
generally not wish to converse with you at all. The reason for this is
that I am not willing to give my time in intellectual conversation to
only one person when and if many others would benefit, unless that one
person is someone very special to me and there is some very good reason
to me why the information should not be made public.
--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
Subject: Re: XXX Unsubscribe because of 501(c)(3) status
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 16:40:11 -0500
From: Representative
To: "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@morelife.org>
On 7/9/2003, at 4:34 PM, Paul Antonik Wakfer emailed me:
Dear Mr. Wakfer,
>This also says something about you and your views (personally). I do not
>accept anyone as being a "representative" of any group, at least not in
>the realm of ideas which can only be individual - groups don't have
>ideas nor do they choose and act as volitional entities.
The only thing it says about me is that I have a reasonable expectation
that a private email between two individuals be kept private. I never
said anything to you about being a "representative" of any group.
You're right, that groups are not volitional entities, but I don't
recall anything in our conversation being relevant to this point.
>If you truly think that what you are saying is rational and moral, then
>you should be fully willing and even eager to bear public scrutiny. In
>fact, you should also want to publish such a dialogue on your own
>website to proudly make your points.
I do not have a problem with public scrutiny of my ideas. Had you
invited me into a discussion/interview/debate of the issue with the
explicit understanding that it would be made public, I would have had
an opportunity to accept or decline. That did not happen. I responded
to an email you sent to me, which contained no language stating that
any reply might be used in a public forum.
> As I have always declared, anyone is fully at liberty to use anything
> which I write or say to them unless
>ahead of that I make a contract with them not to do so.
That's a commendable attitude. But as you yourself point out, this is
not the "default" understanding regarding email.
> I realize that this is not the default understanding on the WWW with respect
> to private email, and for that reason I will not use your personal name.
> However, I reject any idea of a unilateral contract.
I didn't say anything about a unilateral contract. I simply responded
to your PS informing me after the fact that my response to a private
email would be made public. If anything, it seems to me that you're
expecting me to agree to your unilateral contract even though I was not
aware of it when I replied to your request to unsubscribe from XXX.
> If you send me some written material
> without first getting my acceptance not to show it to others, then you
> have ipso facto given it into the public domain and I may do what I
> want with it so long as I am honest about where it came from.
If I had sent it to you via Usenet, or posted it on a bulletin board or
forum, then I would agree with this. But to most individuals, an email
is similar to a private letter, and generally accepted to be private
between the sending and receiving parties. Would you be similarly
willing to post love letters into the public domain?
> ... I am not willing to give my time in intellectual conversation to
> only one person when and if many others would benefit, unless that one
> person is someone very special to me and there is some very good reason
> to me why the information should not be made public.
You don't think a request to keep private a correspondence that was
sent with the general understanding of privacy between two individuals
is a "very good reason"?
Sincerely,
Representative
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rep Representative
Director of Operations, Xxxx Xxxxxx.Net
Representative wrote:
> On 7/9/2003, at 4:34 PM, Paul Antonik Wakfer emailed me:
> Dear Mr. Wakfer,
>> This also says something about you and your views (personally). I do
>> not accept anyone as being a "representative" of any group, at least not
>> in the realm of ideas which can only be individual - groups don't have
>> ideas nor do they choose and act as volitional entities.
> The only thing it says about me is that I have a reasonable expectation
> that a private email between two individuals be kept private. I never
> said anything to you about being a "representative" of any group.
> You're right, that groups are not volitional entities, but I don't
> recall anything in our conversation being relevant to this point.
You used the words "we" and "our" and talked about "our decision to be a
501(c)(3) organization". When you stated:
"So, as much as we
dislike it, we retain 501(c)(3) status because that's what most
individuals tend to support. We simply cannot do what we do otherwise
right now. We wish that were not the case."
you were certainly "representing" the organization. Finally, you signed
as "Director of Operations, Xxxx-Xxxxxx.Net" (and you are still signing
that way I might add). While I too have my website in my sig line,
everyone who reads my website knows that it is nothing more than Kitty
and I personally who in effect *do* act as one entity since everything
either of us writes which might possibly be published is okayed by the
other.
You need to do some fundamental thinking about what these practices
mean. You could begin by reading:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/wakfer/wakfer1.html and go on from
there to other articles that I have written available through
http://selfsip.org
>> If you truly think that what you are saying is rational and moral,
>> then you should be fully willing and even eager to bear public
>> scrutiny. In fact, you should also want to publish such a dialogue
>> on your own website to proudly make your points.
> I do not have a problem with public scrutiny of my ideas.
Then you will have no objection to my placing them on the Internet even
with your name attached.
> Had you
> invited me into a discussion/interview/debate of the issue with the
> explicit understanding that it would be made public, I would have had
> an opportunity to accept or decline. That did not happen. I responded
> to an email you sent to me, which contained no language stating that
> any reply might be used in a public forum.
I did not solicit your reply. I simply asked you to unsubscribe me and
had the courtesy to give you a reason. I did not expect or ask for a
reply. Therefore, your email was unsolicited and has, thus, been *thrown
out* into the public arena, just as anything which you say out loud can
always be overheard (or even recorded with sophisticated equipment) by
anyone and it is then their right to publish. Besides it should make no
difference. You should be proud of everything that you say at all times.
I am. To do otherwise is hypocritical; you would say different things
depending on who you are talking too.
>> As I have always declared, anyone is fully at liberty to use anything
>> which I write or say to them unless ahead of that I make a contract
>> with them not to do so.
> That's a commendable attitude. But as you yourself point out, this is
> not the "default" understanding regarding email.
But the default understanding has no basis in the reality of human
social meta-needs (for definitions see the papers at
http://selfsip.org). It is one of many notions about "privacy" which are
inconsistent with true freedom because to implement them would require
the initiation of force. Therefore, *I* do not accept the default
understanding! Just as much as I do not accept the default
understandings about the legitimacy of government.
>> I realize that this is not the default understanding on the WWW with
>> respect to private email, and for that reason I will not use your
>> personal name. However, I reject any idea of a unilateral contract.
> I didn't say anything about a unilateral contract.
A default understanding of promise to not publish an unsolicited email
*is* a contract imposed *unilaterally* on the receiver of the
unsolicited email.
> I simply responded
> to your PS informing me after the fact that my response to a private
> email would be made public. If anything, it seems to me that you're
> expecting me to agree to your unilateral contract even though I was not
> aware of it when I replied to your request to unsubscribe from XXX.
Not at all. By sending me your words *before* getting me to promise not
to publish them, *you* have placed them into public domain because I
have no *responsibility* to keep them private. BTW, you are still doing
this.
>> If you send me some written material
>> without first getting my acceptance not to show it to others, then you
>> have ipso facto given it into the public domain and I may do what I
>> want with it so long as I am honest about where it came from.
> If I had sent it to you via Usenet, or posted it on a bulletin board or
> forum, then I would agree with this. But to most individuals, an email
> is similar to a private letter, and generally accepted to be private
> between the sending and receiving parties.
I am *not* most individuals. Most individuals are very inconsistent and
have little understanding of the foundations of their ideas and actions.
> Would you be similarly
> willing to post love letters into the public domain?
If there was something of benefit to others I would have no problem
whatever. As I have said: "One should be proud of *everything* one says
and does!" This still holds even if afterwards you realize that
something was a mistake.
>> ... I am not willing to give my time in intellectual conversation to
>> only one person when and if many others would benefit, unless that one
>> person is someone very special to me and there is some very good
>> reason to me why the information should not be made public.
> You don't think a request to keep private a correspondence that was
> sent with the general understanding of privacy between two individuals
> is a "very good reason"?
No. Not unless you convince me by your argument that it is a good
reason. It is *me* that has to be convinced of the "goodness" of the
reason, since it is an after-the-fact promise that you wish from me.
Actually, this continuing dialogue as it has unfolded is an excellent
example from which you, and other libertarians who have not yet learned
to think deeply and logically, can profit. I mean this very sincerely.
This sort of logical focused analysis is exactly what is needed if
libertarians are ever to terminate their bickering on their foundations
and methods, and to establish unified and practical foundations based on
the true nature of humans in reality.
--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
Summary
Like so many people this activist representative of a major libertarian organization clearly saw the harm of her actions: "I know that having tax-exempt status puts 501(c)(3) organizations under the thumbscrews of the IRS in some ways, and "in bed" with the enemy as well", but nevertheless was determined that such actions were necessary for some "greater good". This is because most people are convinced that their and other's rational goals must necessarily and always will conflict. But by the very definition of "rational" this simply cannot be so. With the advent of the Internet age of globally accessible virtually instantaneous communication, and with the continual growth of maximum lifespan making very long-range self-interest truly rational, the time is now ripe for the full development, deeper understanding and wide-spread adoption of a fully self-consistent framework for a mutually self beneficial social order. That is the intent and the goal of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project!
