Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Questions on restitution killing and age

Expand Messages
  • Alton L
    Hey Paul, I read your example on restitution killing, which you generated from an episode of The Practice , and I was wondering if this scenario was to occur
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 24, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Paul, I read your example on restitution killing, which you generated
      from an episode of "The Practice", and I was wondering if this scenario
      was to occur in a Freeman/NSC society, and it turned out where George
      wasn't killed and was found guilty, if Nancy could choose a death sentence
      of George for restitution?

      Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
      of the NSC?

      For those who want to read the restitution killing example, here is the
      link.
      http://morelife.org/lifequal/interpersonal/Restitutional_killing.html

      Alton Lindsay Jr.
    • Paul Wakfer
      ... meta Deleted the question of the minimum age for becoming a Freeman (Executing the NSC), which will be addressed in a separate response. /meta ... Thanks
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 25, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Alton L wrote:
        > Hey Paul, I read your example on restitution killing, which you generated
        > from an episode of "The Practice", and I was wondering if this scenario
        > was to occur in a Freeman/NSC society, and it turned out where George
        > wasn't killed and was found guilty, if Nancy could choose a death sentence
        > of George for restitution?

        meta
        Deleted the question of the minimum age for becoming a Freeman
        (Executing the NSC), which will be addressed in a separate response.
        /meta

        > For those who want to read the restitution killing example, here is the
        > link.
        > http://morelife.org/lifequal/interpersonal/Restitutional_killing.html

        Thanks for posting this question, Alton.

        The first thing that you and others need to realize is that the article
        that I wrote on this example was done before the ideas of SelfSIP had
        been fully discovered and formulated. I was still trying to use the
        "rights" concept and language at that time. Even the first draft of the
        Natural Social Contract contained elements (peonage) which were deleted
        from the later and current NSC.

        Here is a new analysis of this very realistic situation using the full
        principles of Social Meta-Needs Theory as implemented by the NSC and
        Social Preferencing.

        Case 1

        Assumptions: All parties to the events have Executed the NSC and are
        Members of the Freeman Society.

        1. Under the NSC, any Intentional Violation of another Freeman is a
        Breach of the NSC and is grounds for expulsion from the Freeman Society.
        2. George's rape and killing of Nancy's daughter is a Violation of Nancy
        herself, since her daughter is her Property as defined by the NSC.
        3. Since the rape, at the least, must necessarily be clearly Intentional,
        George can quickly be charged and convicted of Breach of the NSC, with
        it only being necessary to prove that George did, in fact, Effectively
        Caused these Events. (However, if he was a previous convicted child
        molester, I can't see how he would have become a Freeman in the first
        place. In order to be part of the Freeman Society, he would have needed
        to be the "ward" of some Freeman.)

        Case 1.1

        1. Someone brings a charge of Breach of NSC against George, and Nancy
        waits for the Breach Trial to be completed.
        2. Once George has been declared to be no longer a Freeman, then any
        Action upon him is no longer under the jursdiction of the NSC, but
        rather simply a matter for Social Preferencing to judge and adjudicate.

        Case 1.2
        1. Nancy kills George while he is still a Freeman (before the completion
        of the Trial for Breach of NSC).
        2. Given sufficiently clear evidence the Trial can still proceed and
        find that George did Breach the NSC and thus has not effectively been
        a Freeman since that point in time. Thus again any Action upon him
        was/is no longer under the jurisdiction of the NSC.

        Case 2.

        Assumptions: Nancy is a Freeman. George is not.

        Case 2.1

        Assumption: George is operating as the ward of a Freeman named John
        (essentially as his Property).

        1. John is then the Responsible party, who will be Charged with a
        Violation of Nancy (because his Property, George, caused Responsible
        Harm to Nancy's Property, her daughter, and thus to herself). Note,
        however, that John's Violation is not Intentional and, thus, is not
        grounds for a charge of Breach of the NSC itself.
        2. Nancy can then ask for whatever restitution she wants from John,
        including the killing (even by herself) of George. As before since all
        Trial Findings are retroactive to the time of the Event which lead to
        the Trial, in effect Nancy will not have Violated John (she cannot
        Violate George because he is not a Freeman), by killing George before
        the Trial is complete, given that its Finding is Guilty and such Finding
        can be Determined without George being alive.

        Case 2.2

        Assumption: George is not the ward of any Freeman but has somehow gotten
        onto the Real Estate of Freemen to take his nefarious Actions.

        1. Any Action to such "outsider" is not under the jurisdiction of the
        NSC, but strictly under the judgment of Social Preferencing.

        Finally note that in all the above cases, if Nancy acts ahead of the
        Verdict, she is taking a chance that George (or John) will not be found
        Guilty, in which case, Nancy would have clearly Intentionally Violated
        George (or John) and thus would be subject to a Charge of Breach of NSC.

        Other cases could involve a mixed situation where the Freeman Society
        is embedded in some current society, but under all such cases if
        either of Nancy or George are not Freemen, then the rules of both
        societies would apply, so we would be back to the actual situation of
        the original TV story.

        I expect that this will raise as many questions as it has answered,
        so everyone do not be hesitant to pose them.

        --Paul
      • Paul Wakfer
        ... There would be no minimum age. The only requirement is that the individual Executing the NSC has a Freeman Attestor (who acts as a kind of sponsor ). If a
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 25, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Alton L wrote:
          > Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
          > of the NSC?

          There would be no minimum age. The only requirement is that the
          individual Executing the NSC has a Freeman Attestor (who acts as a kind
          of "sponsor"). If a person Executing the NSC was a "ward" then such
          Execution (with Attestment) automatically ends that "wardship". All
          actions of any guardian to prevent such a thing are under the adjudication
          of Social Preferencing just as are all Attestment sponsorship actions.
          Recall that in times past (prior to about 100 years ago), children could
          legally leave home at any age and establish themselves as independent
          persons.

          Again anyone please ask whatever further questions and make whatever
          comments come to mind when thinking about the ramifications of my
          statements.

          --Paul
        • Max Peto
          I have had this very same question which I have not posed to the group yet. This question was what age may an individual be a signatory of the NSC . Because I
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 25, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I have had this very same question which I have not posed to the group
            yet. This question was "what age may an individual be a signatory of the
            NSC". Because I have been doing some thinking about this over the past
            few months, I will share my thoughts in response to the comments left by
            Paul, below.

            Paul Wakfer wrote:
            > Alton L wrote:
            >
            >> Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
            >> of the NSC?
            >
            > There would be no minimum age. The only requirement is that the
            > individual Executing the NSC has a Freeman Attestor (who acts as a kind
            > of "sponsor").

            I am thinking about why such a Attestor is necessary. First, it makes
            sense that a person may act as a witness to the execution of the NSC by
            another person. Second, when you use the word "sponsor", it makes me
            think that the Attestor may act to verify that the Executor is fully
            prepared to act according to the NSC. In this capacity as "sponsor",
            it makes me think, then, that the Attestor has a responsibility to be
            correct in hir determination of the preparedness of the Executor. Is
            this correct?

            > If a person Executing the NSC was a "ward" then such
            > Execution (with Attestment) automatically ends that "wardship".

            Right, because the Execution would declare, in effect, "I am responsible for myself, and no 'ward' for me is necessary".

            > All
            > actions of any guardian to prevent such a thing are under the adjudication
            > of Social Preferencing just as are all Attestment sponsorship actions.

            This is the part of this "age question" which I have been thinking
            about. More specifically, I have been thinking about ways by which a
            ward/guardian may (a) benefit from, and hence be motivated to, prevent
            the execution of the NSC by the child, or (b) be socially-preferenced
            against, or have hir lifetime happiness limited by, hir preventing the
            execution of the NSC by the child.

            As for (a), the only circumstance which I have been able to think of is
            if a parent wants to keep the child in a state of ignorance and relative
            helplessness to act as a sort of human slave. This makes me think of how
            I understand Caucasian owners of African slaves operated in the 1800s
            (and even before that): by keeping the slaves uneducated and unskilled
            so they were dependent on the slavemaster for survival, more or less.

            And this circumstance lends itself to (b), whereby a person keeping a
            child in ignorance, dependence, and slavery would likely be
            socially-preferenced against. Furthermore, I see that the
            parent/guardian/ward may be limiting hir lifetime happiness (and that of
            others) by doing this, since the child is likely to be a more-productive
            person if s/he was more educated, skilled, and ultimately more
            self-responsible. By way of this increased education, skill, and
            self-responsibility, the child may have contributed more positively to
            the happiness of the parent/guardian/ward (and others in society),
            compared to if the child remained a dependent slave. In conclusion, the
            parent/guardian/ward is likely to be optimally-increasing hir lifetime
            happiness if s/he encouraged the growth, maturation, and
            self-sovereignty of the child. Further note that this "good mentoring"
            by the parent/guardian/ward for the child may also engender a strong
            friendship and mutual esteem between parent/guardian/ward and child,
            which can be a further source of happiness for both parties. Conversely,
            if the child is being kept in ignorance, dependence, and slavery, these
            are likely to engender bad relations which cause anxiety, anger, and
            unhappiness.

            > Recall that in times past (prior to about 100 years ago), children could
            > legally leave home at any age and establish themselves as independent
            > persons.

            I have heard of this. I recall that Ben Franklin did this when he was
            relatively young (about 19 years, I think). At 19 years, he left the
            city he grew up in and migrated to a different city, some distance away,
            and began to establish himself as an independent person.

            > Again anyone please ask whatever further questions and make whatever
            > comments come to mind when thinking about the ramifications of my
            > statements.

            Done :) This is an interesting topic, and one I have been interested in
            for some time.

            --
            Max Peto
          • Paul Wakfer
            ... The Attestor is first a witness to the fact of Execution of the NSC. This is a standard dictionary meaning of attest and attestor. All reasonable
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 25, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Max Peto wrote:
              > I have had this very same question which I have not posed to the group
              > yet. This question was "what age may an individual be a signatory of the
              > NSC". Because I have been doing some thinking about this over the past
              > few months, I will share my thoughts in response to the comments left by
              > Paul, below.
              >
              > Paul Wakfer wrote:
              >
              >> Alton L wrote:
              >>
              >>> Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
              >>> of the NSC?
              >>
              >> There would be no minimum age. The only requirement is that the
              >> individual Executing the NSC has a Freeman Attestor (who acts as a kind
              >> of "sponsor").
              >
              > I am thinking about why such a Attestor is necessary. First, it makes
              > sense that a person may act as a witness to the execution of the NSC by
              > another person. Second, when you use the word "sponsor", it makes me
              > think that the Attestor may act to verify that the Executor is fully
              > prepared to act according to the NSC.

              The Attestor is first a witness to the fact of Execution of the NSC.
              This is a standard dictionary meaning of attest and attestor. All
              reasonable contracts/agreements should have such a witness and all Valid
              Contracts must have such a witness.

              > In this capacity as "sponsor",
              > it makes me think, then, that the Attestor has a responsibility to be
              > correct in hir determination of the preparedness of the Executor.
              > Is this correct?

              Yes, but not any "Responsibility", as a necessity under the NSC. The
              Attestor must already hirself be a Freeman and by hir Attestation
              s/he is "vouching" for the Executor, in the sense of placing hir (the
              Attestor's) reputation behind the new Freeman. And the Attestor will
              be negatively or positively Social Preferenced accordingly. For example,
              with his past record of child molestation, the person who Attested
              for George (in the restitutional killing example) would be severely
              Social Preferenced against as a result of George's action. That is
              why I do not see that a person such as George would be able to become
              a Freeman until he had very clearly demonstrated that he would never
              again commit any such Violatory Act.

              Note the above uses of both "Responsibility" (as defined in the NSC)
              and the vernacular "responsibility". So that such important differences
              will be clear is why I insist that people use the capitalized forms when
              discussing anything related to SMN and particularly the NSC. If you
              don't precisely define your terms, particularly when discussing the
              ideas with others, then you will either soon be immersed in a logical
              quagmire, or simply misunderstood and ignored.

              >> If a person Executing the NSC was a "ward" then such
              >> Execution (with Attestment) automatically ends that "wardship".
              >
              > Right, because the Execution would declare, in effect, "I am
              > responsible for myself, and no 'ward' for me is necessary".

              The junior person is the "ward". The person who is hir "senior" would
              normally be called hir "guardian" or "warden", although the dictionary
              does give the meaning of guardian also to "ward" (just one more of the
              ambiguous English words). So to prevent such ambiguity your use of the
              word "ward" here would better be replaced by "guardian"

              But, yes, that the Executor will always act responsibly and, in
              particular, will be Responsible to Act fully in accord with the NSC are
              the two most important things that Execution of the NSC implies and
              communicates to others.

              >> All
              >> actions of any guardian to prevent such a thing are under the adjudication
              >> of Social Preferencing just as are all Attestment sponsorship actions.
              >
              > This is the part of this "age question" which I have been thinking
              > about. More specifically, I have been thinking about ways by which a
              > ward/guardian may (a) benefit from, and hence be motivated to, prevent
              > the execution of the NSC by the child, or (b) be socially-preferenced
              > against,

              It is not an "or" in the sense of one or the other, but not both. Any
              Freeman attempting to prevent anyone who desires to Execute the NSC and
              has an Attestor, will almost certainly be negatively Social Preferenced
              by other Freemen (firstly the Attestor). The only reason I can think of
              when this would not happen is when the Attestor is using bad judgment
              and is hirself negatively Socially Preferenced by other Freeman siding
              with the guardian's decision that the ward is not yet ready to become a
              Freeman. OTOH, if the guardian is abusing hir guardianship, then the
              whole purpose of becoming a Freeman may be simply a way for the ward to
              change guardians, likely becoming a ward of the Attestor. Once again,
              whether or not this is most conducive to optimizing the Lifetime
              Happiness of everyone Connected will be decided by Social Preferencing.

              > or have hir lifetime happiness limited by, hir preventing the
              > execution of the NSC by the child.

              It is incorrect to express this as "have hir lifetime happiness limited".
              First because others can only influence by negative Social Preferencing,
              thereby likely reducing the possible total. But second, the notion of
              a bound to the Lifetime Happiness amount is invalid and the fact that
              you used such an expression suggests that you still do not fully
              understand the always increasing nature of Lifetime Happiness. In fact
              if a person's Lifetime Happiness were actually ever to reach a bound
              above which it cannot go, then such person might as well commit
              suicide since that fact is logically equivalent to hir having an
              instantaneous Happiness Value of zero or less for the rest of hir life.
              Please direct your thinking to the mathematical nature of the integral
              of Happiness Value over time which, an always accumulating amount,
              equals Lifetime Happiness.

              Note, once again I ask that you capitalize all terms that you are using
              with the meaning given in the NSC. Otherwise it is not clear that we are
              talking about the same thing.

              > As for (a), the only circumstance which I have been able to think of is
              > if a parent wants to keep the child in a state of ignorance and relative
              > helplessness to act as a sort of human slave. This makes me think of how
              > I understand Caucasian owners of African slaves operated in the 1800s
              > (and even before that): by keeping the slaves uneducated and unskilled
              > so they were dependent on the slavemaster for survival, more or less.

              African and middle Eastern owners of (sometimes Caucasian) slaves did/do
              the same thing. In a Freeman Society all such people would not be acting
              rationally (ie seeking to optimally increase their Lifetime Happiness).
              OTOH, in this current messy society such Action may well be long-range
              best, because there is little effective Social Preferencing and escape
              from any restitution or penalties from acts of harming and abusing
              others is often relatively easy to achieve.

              > And this circumstance lends itself to (b), whereby a person keeping a
              > child in ignorance, dependence, and slavery would likely be
              > socially-preferenced against.

              Not merely "likely", but rather certainly and strongly. You need to
              envisage a society where the vast majority of people behave far
              differently than in the current one, constantly getting reports of
              certain flagged behaviors by anyone with whom they are Connected - such
              reports provided by intelligent software monitoring all the online
              database information about those people, which is all linked to their
              NSC necessary Identifying Information. Think of the metaphor of a small
              town with all information getting spread fast by gossips (but far more
              accurately, of course).

              > Furthermore, I see that the
              > parent/guardian/ward may be limiting hir lifetime happiness (and that of
              > others) by doing this,

              Again, not "limiting" in amount at any point of time when s/he is still
              alive, but reducing the rate of increase and the ultimate amount.

              > since the child is likely to be a more-productive
              > person if s/he was more educated, skilled, and ultimately more
              > self-responsible. By way of this increased education, skill, and
              > self-responsibility, the child may have contributed more positively to
              > the happiness of the parent/guardian/ward (and others in society),
              > compared to if the child remained a dependent slave. In conclusion, the
              > parent/guardian/ward is likely to be optimally-increasing hir lifetime
              > happiness if s/he encouraged the growth, maturation, and
              > self-sovereignty of the child. Further note that this "good mentoring"
              > by the parent/guardian/ward for the child may also engender a strong
              > friendship and mutual esteem between parent/guardian/ward and child,
              > which can be a further source of happiness for both parties. Conversely,
              > if the child is being kept in ignorance, dependence, and slavery, these
              > are likely to engender bad relations which cause anxiety, anger, and
              > unhappiness.

              Well done! That was a good explanation of some of the thinking that I
              went through as I formulated the implementation of SMN theory.

              >> Recall that in times past (prior to about 100 years ago), children could
              >> legally leave home at any age and establish themselves as independent
              >> persons.
              >
              > I have heard of this. I recall that Ben Franklin did this when he was
              > relatively young (about 19 years, I think). At 19 years, he left the
              > city he grew up in and migrated to a different city, some distance away,
              > and began to establish himself as an independent person.

              I can't think of any right now, but I am certain that there are many
              historically notable figures who started independent life much earlier
              than 19. I know that a 100 years (even less) ago it was routine for a
              boy to leave his parental home and apprentice to a skilled tradesman by
              the age of 13 or 14, right after grade 8 graduation. My mother was out
              to work by age 14 (in 1929) because the home needed another wage earner.
              Although she still lived at home and helped with her 3 younger brothers
              and sisters, she could well have lived separately - she was married at
              age 17 to my father of age 21 who had also been out of home for several
              years (partly because his father was a real tyrant). For myself, I was
              fully independent already at age 17 when I signed a contract with the
              Canadian Air Force (my parents had to also sign because I was not yet
              18). I only went back home on weekends during my University years and
              during the summer training in the Air Force when I was not too far away.

              >> Again anyone please ask whatever further questions and make whatever
              >> comments come to mind when thinking about the ramifications of my
              >> statements.
              >
              > Done :) This is an interesting topic, and one I have been
              > interested in for some time.

              I'm glad you are enjoying it. I am too.

              --Paul
            • Alton Lindsay Jr.
              ... Yes, I remember you mentioning the removal of the peonage enjoinder from the interim SC and the NSC with the restitution agreement idea taking its place.
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 26, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:

                >> Hey Paul, I read your example on restitution killing, which you generated
                >> from an episode of "The Practice", and I was wondering if this scenario
                >> was to occur in a Freeman/NSC society, and it turned out where George
                >> wasn't killed and was found guilty, if Nancy could choose a death sentence
                >> of George for restitution?
                >>
                >> For those who want to read the restitution killing example, here is the
                >> link.
                >> http://morelife. org/lifequal/ interpersonal/ Restitutional_ killing.html


                >Thanks for posting this question, Alton.

                >The first thing that you and others need to realize is that the article
                >that I wrote on this example was done before the ideas of SelfSIP had
                >been fully discovered and formulated. I was still trying to use the
                >"rights" concept and language at that time. Even the first draft of the
                >Natural Social Contract contained elements (peonage) which were deleted
                >from the later and current NSC.

                Yes, I remember you mentioning the removal of the peonage enjoinder
                from the interim SC and the NSC with the restitution agreement idea
                taking its place.


                >Here is a new analysis of this very realistic situation using the full
                >principles of Social Meta-Needs Theory as implemented by the NSC and
                >Social Preferencing.
                >
                >Case 1
                >
                >Assumptions: All parties to the events have Executed the NSC and are
                >Members of the Freeman Society.
                >
                >1. Under the NSC, any Intentional Violation of another Freeman is a
                >Breach of the NSC and is grounds for expulsion from the Freeman Society.
                >2. George's rape and killing of Nancy's daughter is a Violation of Nancy
                >herself, since her daughter is her Property as defined by the NSC.
                >3. Since the rape, at the least, must necessarily be clearly Intentional,
                >George can quickly be charged and convicted of Breach of the NSC, with
                >it only being necessary to prove that George did, in fact, Effectively
                >Caused these Events. (However, if he was a previous convicted child
                >molester, I can't see how he would have become a Freeman in the first
                >place. In order to be part of the Freeman Society, he would have needed
                >to be the "ward" of some Freeman.)
                >
                >Case 1.1
                >
                >1. Someone brings a charge of Breach of NSC against George, and Nancy
                >waits for the Breach Trial to be completed.
                >2. Once George has been declared to be no longer a Freeman, then any
                >Action upon him is no longer under the jurisdiction of the NSC, but
                >rather simply a matter for Social Preferencing to judge and adjudicate.

                This means George is now subject to Nancy's restitution agreement right?

                >Case 1.2
                >
                >1. Nancy kills George while he is still a Freeman (before the completion
                >of the Trial for Breach of NSC).
                >2. Given sufficiently clear evidence the Trial can still proceed and
                >find that George did Breach the NSC and thus has not effectively been
                >a Freeman since that point in time. Thus again any Action upon him
                >was/is no longer under the jurisdiction of the NSC.
                >
                >Case 2.
                >
                >Assumptions: Nancy is a Freeman. George is not.
                >
                >Case 2.1
                >
                >Assumption: George is operating as the ward of a Freeman named John
                >(essentially as his Property).
                >
                >1. John is then the Responsible party, who will be Charged with a
                >Violation of Nancy (because his Property, George, caused Responsible
                >Harm to Nancy's Property, her daughter, and thus to herself). Note,
                >however, that John's Violation is not Intentional and, thus, is not
                >grounds for a charge of Breach of the NSC itself.
                >2. Nancy can then ask for whatever restitution she wants from John,
                >including the killing (even by herself) of George. As before since all
                >Trial Findings are retroactive to the time of the Event which lead to
                >the Trial, in effect Nancy will not have Violated John (she cannot
                >Violate George because he is not a Freeman), by killing George before
                >the Trial is complete, given that its Finding is Guilty and such Finding
                >can be Determined without George being alive.

                So, since John is responsible for George as his property(ward), John
                will also be responsible for George's actions. And due to George
                being found guilty, John is subject to Nancy's restitution agreement.
                Am I right?

                >Case 2.2
                >
                >Assumption: George is not the ward of any Freeman but has somehow gotten
                >onto the Real Estate of Freemen to take his nefarious Actions.
                >
                >1. Any Action to such "outsider" is not under the jurisdiction of the
                >NSC, but strictly under the judgment of Social Preferencing.
                >Finally note that in all the above cases, if Nancy acts ahead of the
                >Verdict, she is taking a chance that George (or John) will not be found
                >Guilty, in which case, Nancy would have clearly Intentionally Violated
                >George (or John) and thus would be subject to a Charge of Breach of NSC.
                >
                >Other cases could involve a mixed situation where the Freeman Society
                >is embedded in some current society, but under all such cases if
                >either of Nancy or George are not Freemen, then the rules of both
                >societies would apply, so we would be back to the actual situation of
                >the original TV story.
                >
                >I expect that this will raise as many questions as it has answered,
                >so everyone do not be hesitant to pose them.
                >
                >--Paul

                I think in general your case scenarios turned out to be clear answers
                for me :)
                I only have one more little question. A restitution agreement can
                basically be anything a victim wants from a guilty violator who
                caused the event even if it is radical (except for harming another
                Freeman or extracting material possession from another Freeman), and
                this agreement will be open to social preferencing by all Freemen?
              • Alton Lindsay Jr.
                ... This make sense since it enables guardians to self-govern their children/wards and to choose the age or time they feel their ward is ready to Execute the
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 27, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Alton L wrote:
                  > > Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
                  > > of the NSC?
                  >
                  > There would be no minimum age. The only requirement is that the
                  > individual Executing the NSC has a Freeman Attestor (who acts as a kind
                  > of "sponsor"). If a person Executing the NSC was a "ward" then such
                  > Execution (with Attestment) automatically ends that "wardship". All
                  > actions of any guardian to prevent such a thing are under the adjudication
                  > of Social Preferencing just as are all Attestment sponsorship actions.
                  > Recall that in times past (prior to about 100 years ago), children could
                  > legally leave home at any age and establish themselves as independent
                  > persons.
                  >
                  > Again anyone please ask whatever further questions and make whatever
                  > comments come to mind when thinking about the ramifications of my
                  > statements.
                  >
                  > --Paul
                  >

                  This make sense since it enables guardians to self-govern their
                  children/wards and to choose the age or time they feel their ward is
                  ready to Execute the NSC. In addition, a ward has the option to have
                  another Attestor. But say a ward wants another guardian due to not
                  liking the person anymore, and their current guardian disagrees, the
                  best way to handle this would be for the new guardian to be the Attestor
                  for this ward despite this ward being quite young?
                • Paul Wakfer
                  meta This is a resend of message #2134 in order to correct the who wrote lines at the top, so that it is clear who wrote what. They were left incorrect
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 27, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    meta
                    This is a resend of message #2134 in order to correct the "who wrote"
                    lines at the top, so that it is clear who wrote what. They were left
                    incorrect because I did not catch Alton's error in formatting them.
                    After this message is posted, I will then delete #2134.

                    Everyone please note the logical structure of this formatting and its
                    importance for keeping track of who wrote what, in a long dialog. And
                    if you don't fully understand the "text level" formatting, read the
                    Wikipedia article on posting_style (except that I notice many of my
                    own good edits to it are now modified and mangled).

                    I apologize to everyone for the duplicate message. Please delete the
                    original.
                    /meta

                    Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                    > Paul Wakfer wrote:
                    >> Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                    >>
                    >>> Hey Paul, I read your example on restitution killing, which you generated
                    >>> from an episode of "The Practice", and I was wondering if this scenario
                    >>> was to occur in a Freeman/NSC society, and it turned out where George
                    >>> wasn't killed and was found guilty, if Nancy could choose a death sentence
                    >>> of George for restitution?
                    >>>
                    >>> For those who want to read the restitution killing example, here is the
                    >>> link.
                    >>> http://morelife.org/lifequal/interpersonal/Restitutional_killing.html
                    >>>
                    >> Thanks for posting this question, Alton.
                    >>
                    >> The first thing that you and others need to realize is that the article
                    >> that I wrote on this example was done before the ideas of SelfSIP had
                    >> been fully discovered and formulated. I was still trying to use the
                    >> "rights" concept and language at that time. Even the first draft of the
                    >> Natural Social Contract contained elements (peonage) which were deleted
                    >> from the later and current NSC.
                    >
                    > Yes, I remember you mentioning the removal of the peonage enjoinder
                    > from the interim SC and the NSC with the restitution agreement idea
                    > taking its place.

                    Actually it was not quite like that. It has been clear to me for over 40
                    years that restitution is the only rational response to harm done to one
                    by another, and it was already solidly a part of what is now called the
                    Interim Social Contract (a possible "stepping stone" to the full Freeman
                    Society) in virtually the same form as now in the NSC. However, at that
                    time I could not seen any method but a kind of bondage of the Violator
                    for ensuring that restitution was actually paid, and that was what I
                    called "Peonage". However, after Jack (David T Jackemeyer) objected
                    strongly to the whole idea of Peonage, and with further thinking having
                    been done about the strong effects of both negative Social Preferencing
                    and being expelled from the Freeman Society, I realized that there need
                    be nothing about Peonage in the Social Contract (which makes it a much
                    looser framework and more appealing to market anarchists). However, a
                    person who is expelled from being a Freeman may still voluntarily become
                    a peon to some Freeman (not necessarily the one whom s/he Violated), in
                    order to be able to still work within the Freeman Society, be able to
                    best effect Restitution and, thus, be able to again be a Freeman.

                    >> Here is a new analysis of this very realistic situation using the full
                    >> principles of Social Meta-Needs Theory as implemented by the NSC and
                    >> Social Preferencing.
                    >>
                    >> Case 1
                    >>
                    >> Assumptions: All parties to the events have Executed the NSC and are
                    >> Members of the Freeman Society.
                    >>
                    >> 1. Under the NSC, any Intentional Violation of another Freeman is a
                    >> Breach of the NSC and is grounds for expulsion from the Freeman Society.
                    >> 2. George's rape and killing of Nancy's daughter is a Violation of Nancy
                    >> herself, since her daughter is her Property as defined by the NSC.
                    >> 3. Since the rape, at the least, must necessarily be clearly Intentional,
                    >> George can quickly be charged and convicted of Breach of the NSC, with
                    >> it only being necessary to prove that George did, in fact, Effectively
                    >> Caused these Events. (However, if he was a previous convicted child
                    >> molester, I can't see how he would have become a Freeman in the first
                    >> place. In order to be part of the Freeman Society, he would have needed
                    >> to be the "ward" of some Freeman.)
                    >>
                    >> Case 1.1
                    >>
                    >> 1. Someone brings a charge of Breach of NSC against George, and Nancy
                    >> waits for the Breach Trial to be completed.
                    >> 2. Once George has been declared to be no longer a Freeman, then any
                    >> Action upon him is no longer under the jurisdiction of the NSC, but
                    >> rather simply a matter for Social Preferencing to judge and adjudicate.
                    >
                    > This means George is now subject to Nancy's restitution agreement right?

                    In the cases I did, I have not considered that Nancy wants any kind
                    of Restitution, but only wants revenge (to have George dead), partly
                    because such requirements are mutually contradictory. However, if Nancy
                    (after cooling down) decided that the more rational course is to require
                    as much Restitution as George is capable of producing in his Lifetime,
                    then that would be a part of a separate trial on a Charge by her
                    concerning the Responsible Harm that he has Effected to her. If you read
                    the NSC again you will see that the Charge of Breach of NSC is
                    completely separate from the Charge for the actual Violation and the
                    Restitution Request for that Violation (although I suppose they could be
                    both done during the same Trial).

                    But yes, whether or not George is expelled from the Freeman Society,
                    he is still liable for any Restitution Requirement against him. The
                    circumstances under which he can again become a Freeman are decided
                    at the Breach Trial (see "Breach Duration" in the NSC), which could
                    be "until the Restitution is paid in full".

                    >> Case 1.2
                    >>
                    >> 1. Nancy kills George while he is still a Freeman (before the completion
                    >> of the Trial for Breach of NSC).
                    >> 2. Given sufficiently clear evidence the Trial can still proceed and
                    >> find that George did Breach the NSC and thus has not effectively been
                    >> a Freeman since that point in time. Thus again any Action upon him
                    >> was/is no longer under the jurisdiction of the NSC.
                    >>
                    >> Case 2.
                    >>
                    >> Assumptions: Nancy is a Freeman. George is not.
                    >>
                    >> Case 2.1
                    >>
                    >> Assumption: George is operating as the ward of a Freeman named John
                    >> (essentially as his Property).
                    >>
                    >> 1. John is then the Responsible party, who will be Charged with a
                    >> Violation of Nancy (because his Property, George, caused Responsible
                    >> Harm to Nancy's Property, her daughter, and thus to herself). Note,
                    >> however, that John's Violation is not Intentional and, thus, is not
                    >> grounds for a charge of Breach of the NSC itself.
                    >> 2. Nancy can then ask for whatever restitution she wants from John,
                    >> including the killing (even by herself) of George. As before since all
                    >> Trial Findings are retroactive to the time of the Event which lead to
                    >> the Trial, in effect Nancy will not have Violated John (she cannot
                    >> Violate George because he is not a Freeman), by killing George before
                    >> the Trial is complete, given that its Finding is Guilty and such Finding
                    >> can be Determined without George being alive.
                    >
                    > So, since John is responsible for George as his property (ward), John
                    > will also be responsible for George's actions.

                    Yes, but note that you have included in the above sentence two distinct
                    usages of "responsible". The first is the vernacular word "responsible"
                    and the second is the NSC term "Responsible". John is Responsible under
                    the NSC for George's actions (just as John is Responsible for all
                    Effects of any of his Property). However there is nothing in the NSC
                    that makes John Responsible for George - in the sense of being a good
                    and kind guardian for George, there is only Social Preferencing to
                    evaluate and adjudicate John's actions in that regard.

                    > And due to George
                    > being found guilty, John is subject to Nancy's restitution agreement.
                    > Am I right?

                    That is correct, but Nancy's "Restitution Requirement". It is not a
                    Restitution Agreement unless George agreed to it and Executed it as a
                    Valid Contract, which can only occur if the Dispute is Settled before
                    a Trial (see the definition of Restitution Agreement in the NSC:
                    http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#restitution_agreement).

                    Note 1: There are highly importance distinctions between all the
                    capitalized terms of the NSC such as: Restitution Request, Restitution
                    Requirement and Restitution Agreement. Unless you read and clearly
                    understand such differences and their purposes, you have not yet fully
                    understood the operation of the NSC.

                    Note 2: Please Capitalize terms that you are using with their SelfSIP
                    meanings. otherwise they are subject to the ambiguities inherent in
                    those words and phrase in the English language. For example, the term
                    "Property" has a very clearly defined meaning that is only one of the
                    many meanings of the vernacular word "property".

                    >> Case 2.2
                    >>
                    >> Assumption: George is not the ward of any Freeman but has somehow gotten
                    >> onto the Real Estate of Freemen to take his nefarious Actions.
                    >>
                    >> 1. Any Action to such "outsider" is not under the jurisdiction of the
                    >> NSC, but strictly under the judgment of Social Preferencing.
                    >> Finally note that in all the above cases, if Nancy acts ahead of the
                    >> Verdict, she is taking a chance that George (or John) will not be found
                    >> Guilty, in which case, Nancy would have clearly Intentionally Violated
                    >> George (or John) and thus would be subject to a Charge of Breach of NSC.
                    >>
                    >> Other cases could involve a mixed situation where the Freeman Society
                    >> is embedded in some current society, but under all such cases if
                    >> either of Nancy or George are not Freemen, then the rules of both
                    >> societies would apply, so we would be back to the actual situation of
                    >> the original TV story.
                    >>
                    >> I expect that this will raise as many questions as it has answered,
                    >> so everyone do not be hesitant to pose them.
                    >
                    > I think in general your case scenarios turned out to be clear answers
                    > for me :)

                    Good. This is the kind of practical situation and case study of which
                    I did one in a very exhaustive manner and have been waiting for someone
                    or more people to attempt others. I could do them all but that would
                    not be the best way for others to learn and show their understanding
                    by application to a practical problem. The whole set is organized at
                    their index page:
                    http://selfsip.org/solutions/interaction_examples/index.html
                    and the almost fully worked example of "UnRequested Action for Mutual
                    Benefit" is at:
                    http://selfsip.org/solutions/interaction_examples/intent_benefit/index.html
                    Think of all these examples as problems to be posed and solved by
                    students of the SelfSIP courseware. The Nancy/George example would fit
                    in the category: "Intentional Violation of Another" and I have placed a
                    link to this thread from the index page for that category of examples.

                    > I only have one more little question. A restitution agreement can
                    > basically be anything a victim wants from a guilty violator who
                    > caused the event even if it is radical (except for harming another
                    > Freeman or extracting material possession from another Freeman), and
                    > this agreement will be open to social preferencing by all Freemen?

                    That is essentially correct. The major exception is that a requirement
                    for physical Harm to the Violator within a Restitution Request is not
                    sustainable under the NSC unless the Violator is Found to be in Breach
                    of the NSC and, thus, becomes an Ex-Freeman. Even so, if s/he
                    immediately arranges to be the Property of some Freeman, s/he can be
                    protected from such Harm by that Freeman, who bears no obligation to the
                    Victim for any of the Restitution Requirements. This is a difference
                    between the NSC and the old Interim Social Contract, which did allow
                    such revenge or retribution to happen.

                    --Paul
                  • Alton Lindsay Jr.
                    ... After rereading, I see that Charge of Breach of the NSC is a Freeman acting contrary to the NSC s Required Stipulations and Charge of the actual Violation
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 27, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                      > > Paul Wakfer wrote:
                      > >> Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >>> Hey Paul, I read your example on restitution killing, which you generated
                      > >>> from an episode of "The Practice", and I was wondering if this scenario
                      > >>> was to occur in a Freeman/NSC society, and it turned out where George
                      > >>> wasn't killed and was found guilty, if Nancy could choose a death sentence
                      > >>> of George for restitution?
                      > >>>
                      > >>> For those who want to read the restitution killing example, here is the
                      > >>> link.
                      > >>> http://morelife.org/lifequal/interpersonal/Restitutional_killing.html
                      > >>>
                      > >> Thanks for posting this question, Alton.
                      > >>
                      > >> The first thing that you and others need to realize is that the article
                      > >> that I wrote on this example was done before the ideas of SelfSIP had
                      > >> been fully discovered and formulated. I was still trying to use the
                      > >> "rights" concept and language at that time. Even the first draft of the
                      > >> Natural Social Contract contained elements (peonage) which were deleted
                      > >> from the later and current NSC.
                      > >
                      > > Yes, I remember you mentioning the removal of the peonage enjoinder
                      > > from the interim SC and the NSC with the restitution agreement idea
                      > > taking its place.
                      >
                      > Actually it was not quite like that. It has been clear to me for over 40
                      > years that restitution is the only rational response to harm done to one
                      > by another, and it was already solidly a part of what is now called the
                      > Interim Social Contract (a possible "stepping stone" to the full Freeman
                      > Society) in virtually the same form as now in the NSC. However, at that
                      > time I could not seen any method but a kind of bondage of the Violator
                      > for ensuring that restitution was actually paid, and that was what I
                      > called "Peonage". However, after Jack (David T Jackemeyer) objected
                      > strongly to the whole idea of Peonage, and with further thinking having
                      > been done about the strong effects of both negative Social Preferencing
                      > and being expelled from the Freeman Society, I realized that there need
                      > be nothing about Peonage in the Social Contract (which makes it a much
                      > looser framework and more appealing to market anarchists). However, a
                      > person who is expelled from being a Freeman may still voluntarily become
                      > a peon to some Freeman (not necessarily the one whom s/he Violated), in
                      > order to be able to still work within the Freeman Society, be able to
                      > best effect Restitution and, thus, be able to again be a Freeman.
                      >
                      > >> Here is a new analysis of this very realistic situation using the full
                      > >> principles of Social Meta-Needs Theory as implemented by the NSC and
                      > >> Social Preferencing.
                      > >>
                      > >> Case 1
                      > >>
                      > >> Assumptions: All parties to the events have Executed the NSC and are
                      > >> Members of the Freeman Society.
                      > >>
                      > >> 1. Under the NSC, any Intentional Violation of another Freeman is a
                      > >> Breach of the NSC and is grounds for expulsion from the Freeman Society.
                      > >> 2. George's rape and killing of Nancy's daughter is a Violation of Nancy
                      > >> herself, since her daughter is her Property as defined by the NSC.
                      > >> 3. Since the rape, at the least, must necessarily be clearly Intentional,
                      > >> George can quickly be charged and convicted of Breach of the NSC, with
                      > >> it only being necessary to prove that George did, in fact, Effectively
                      > >> Caused these Events. (However, if he was a previous convicted child
                      > >> molester, I can't see how he would have become a Freeman in the first
                      > >> place. In order to be part of the Freeman Society, he would have needed
                      > >> to be the "ward" of some Freeman.)
                      > >>
                      > >> Case 1.1
                      > >>
                      > >> 1. Someone brings a charge of Breach of NSC against George, and Nancy
                      > >> waits for the Breach Trial to be completed.
                      > >> 2. Once George has been declared to be no longer a Freeman, then any
                      > >> Action upon him is no longer under the jurisdiction of the NSC, but
                      > >> rather simply a matter for Social Preferencing to judge and adjudicate.
                      > >
                      > > This means George is now subject to Nancy's restitution agreement right?
                      >
                      > In the cases I did, I have not considered that Nancy wants any kind
                      > of Restitution, but only wants revenge (to have George dead), partly
                      > because such requirements are mutually contradictory. However, if Nancy
                      > (after cooling down) decided that the more rational course is to require
                      > as much Restitution as George is capable of producing in his Lifetime,
                      > then that would be a part of a separate trial on a Charge by her
                      > concerning the Responsible Harm that he has Effected to her. If you read
                      > the NSC again you will see that the Charge of Breach of NSC is
                      > completely separate from the Charge for the actual Violation and the
                      > Restitution Request for that Violation (although I suppose they could be
                      > both done during the same Trial).

                      After rereading, I see that Charge of Breach of the NSC is a Freeman
                      acting contrary to the NSC's Required Stipulations and Charge of the
                      actual Violation is the event, in which the Freeman judged the Harm
                      to himself by Freeman-B.

                      > But yes, whether or not George is expelled from the Freeman Society,
                      > he is still liable for any Restitution Requirement against him. The
                      > circumstances under which he can again become a Freeman are decided
                      > at the Breach Trial (see "Breach Duration" in the NSC), which could
                      > be "until the Restitution is paid in full".
                      >
                      > >> Case 1.2
                      > >>
                      > >> 1. Nancy kills George while he is still a Freeman (before the completion
                      > >> of the Trial for Breach of NSC).
                      > >> 2. Given sufficiently clear evidence the Trial can still proceed and
                      > >> find that George did Breach the NSC and thus has not effectively been
                      > >> a Freeman since that point in time. Thus again any Action upon him
                      > >> was/is no longer under the jurisdiction of the NSC.
                      > >>
                      > >> Case 2.
                      > >>
                      > >> Assumptions: Nancy is a Freeman. George is not.
                      > >>
                      > >> Case 2.1
                      > >>
                      > >> Assumption: George is operating as the ward of a Freeman named John
                      > >> (essentially as his Property).
                      > >>
                      > >> 1. John is then the Responsible party, who will be Charged with a
                      > >> Violation of Nancy (because his Property, George, caused Responsible
                      > >> Harm to Nancy's Property, her daughter, and thus to herself). Note,
                      > >> however, that John's Violation is not Intentional and, thus, is not
                      > >> grounds for a charge of Breach of the NSC itself.
                      > >> 2. Nancy can then ask for whatever restitution she wants from John,
                      > >> including the killing (even by herself) of George. As before since all
                      > >> Trial Findings are retroactive to the time of the Event which lead to
                      > >> the Trial, in effect Nancy will not have Violated John (she cannot
                      > >> Violate George because he is not a Freeman), by killing George before
                      > >> the Trial is complete, given that its Finding is Guilty and such Finding
                      > >> can be Determined without George being alive.
                      > >
                      > > So, since John is responsible for George as his property (ward), John
                      > > will also be responsible for George's actions.
                      >
                      > Yes, but note that you have included in the above sentence two distinct
                      > usages of "responsible". The first is the vernacular word "responsible"
                      > and the second is the NSC term "Responsible". John is Responsible under
                      > the NSC for George's actions (just as John is Responsible for all
                      > Effects of any of his Property). However there is nothing in the NSC
                      > that makes John Responsible for George - in the sense of being a good
                      > and kind guardian for George, there is only Social Preferencing to
                      > evaluate and adjudicate John's actions in that regard.

                      Yes, I understand the distinction.

                      > > And due to George
                      > > being found guilty, John is subject to Nancy's restitution agreement.
                      > > Am I right?
                      >
                      > That is correct, but Nancy's "Restitution Requirement". It is not a
                      > Restitution Agreement unless George agreed to it and Executed it as a
                      > Valid Contract, which can only occur if the Dispute is Settled before
                      > a Trial (see the definition of Restitution Agreement in the NSC:
                      > http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#restitution_agreement).
                      >
                      > Note 1: There are highly importance distinctions between all the
                      > capitalized terms of the NSC such as: Restitution Request, Restitution
                      > Requirement and Restitution Agreement. Unless you read and clearly
                      > understand such differences and their purposes, you have not yet fully
                      > understood the operation of the NSC.

                      I went back over the differences. I even see where Nancy could also
                      view the loss of her daughter being UnRestitutable. But say Nancy
                      wanted George to be sentence to death by lethal injection, that would
                      be the Restitution Agreement for George to accept before the Determination
                      of a Trial? But if George does not accept it, and the Trial Determined
                      him guilty of the Charge of Violation, this is where the Restitution
                      Requirement is in effect. This is correct?

                      > Note 2: Please Capitalize terms that you are using with their SelfSIP
                      > meanings. otherwise they are subject to the ambiguities inherent in
                      > those words and phrase in the English language. For example, the term
                      > "Property" has a very clearly defined meaning that is only one of the
                      > many meanings of the vernacular word "property".

                      I agree to use the Capitalize terms to avoid confusion.

                      > >> Case 2.2
                      > >>
                      > >> Assumption: George is not the ward of any Freeman but has somehow gotten
                      > >> onto the Real Estate of Freemen to take his nefarious Actions.
                      > >>
                      > >> 1. Any Action to such "outsider" is not under the jurisdiction of the
                      > >> NSC, but strictly under the judgment of Social Preferencing.
                      > >> Finally note that in all the above cases, if Nancy acts ahead of the
                      > >> Verdict, she is taking a chance that George (or John) will not be found
                      > >> Guilty, in which case, Nancy would have clearly Intentionally Violated
                      > >> George (or John) and thus would be subject to a Charge of Breach of NSC.
                      > >>
                      > >> Other cases could involve a mixed situation where the Freeman Society
                      > >> is embedded in some current society, but under all such cases if
                      > >> either of Nancy or George are not Freemen, then the rules of both
                      > >> societies would apply, so we would be back to the actual situation of
                      > >> the original TV story.
                      > >>
                      > >> I expect that this will raise as many questions as it has answered,
                      > >> so everyone do not be hesitant to pose them.
                      > >
                      > > I think in general your case scenarios turned out to be clear answers
                      > > for me :)
                      >
                      > Good. This is the kind of practical situation and case study of which
                      > I did one in a very exhaustive manner and have been waiting for someone
                      > or more people to attempt others. I could do them all but that would
                      > not be the best way for others to learn and show their understanding
                      > by application to a practical problem. The whole set is organized at
                      > their index page:
                      > http://selfsip.org/solutions/interaction_examples/index.html
                      > and the almost fully worked example of "UnRequested Action for Mutual
                      > Benefit" is at:
                      > http://selfsip.org/solutions/interaction_examples/intent_benefit/index.html
                      > Think of all these examples as problems to be posed and solved by
                      > students of the SelfSIP courseware. The Nancy/George example would fit
                      > in the category: "Intentional Violation of Another" and I have placed a
                      > link to this thread from the index page for that category of examples.

                      Thanks for the links. Maybe you can also have a test for students to
                      measure their understanding of SelfSIP to go along with them reading
                      these case examples and the SelfSIP website.

                      > > I only have one more little question. A restitution agreement can
                      > > basically be anything a victim wants from a guilty violator who
                      > > caused the event even if it is radical (except for harming another
                      > > Freeman or extracting material possession from another Freeman), and
                      > > this agreement will be open to social preferencing by all Freemen?
                      >
                      > That is essentially correct. The major exception is that a requirement
                      > for physical Harm to the Violator within a Restitution Request is not
                      > sustainable under the NSC unless the Violator is Found to be in Breach
                      > of the NSC and, thus, becomes an Ex-Freeman. Even so, if s/he
                      > immediately arranges to be the Property of some Freeman, s/he can be
                      > protected from such Harm by that Freeman, who bears no obligation to the
                      > Victim for any of the Restitution Requirements. This is a difference
                      > between the NSC and the old Interim Social Contract, which did allow
                      > such revenge or retribution to happen.
                      >
                      > --Paul
                      >

                      Understood :-)
                    • Paul Wakfer
                      ... I don t quite see why you say this, since it is the *child/ward* who actually decides the time/circumstances when s/he is ready to become a Freeman. That
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 28, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                        > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >> Alton L wrote:
                        >>
                        >>> Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
                        >>> of the NSC?
                        >>>
                        >>
                        >> There would be no minimum age. The only requirement is that the
                        >> individual Executing the NSC has a Freeman Attestor (who acts as a kind
                        >> of "sponsor"). If a person Executing the NSC was a "ward" then such
                        >> Execution (with Attestment) automatically ends that "wardship". All
                        >> actions of any guardian to prevent such a thing are under the adjudication
                        >> of Social Preferencing just as are all Attestment sponsorship actions.
                        >> Recall that in times past (prior to about 100 years ago), children could
                        >> legally leave home at any age and establish themselves as independent
                        >> persons.
                        >>
                        >> Again anyone please ask whatever further questions and make whatever
                        >> comments come to mind when thinking about the ramifications of my
                        >> statements.
                        >
                        > This make sense since it enables guardians to self-govern their
                        > children/wards and to choose the age or time they feel their ward is
                        > ready to Execute the NSC.

                        I don't quite see why you say this, since it is the *child/ward* who
                        actually decides the time/circumstances when s/he is ready to become a
                        Freeman. That is, unless the parent/guardian Abandons hir, which would
                        be a Violation of the Owner of the Real Estate on which the ward is
                        Abandoned, and, of course as with all actions, is subject to Social
                        Preferencing by other Freemen, even if Abandoned in UnOwned space.
                        What the parent or guardian should more reasonably do is to assess
                        the readiness of the child/ward to be ready for the responsibility
                        of Freeman status and to advise hir accordingly.

                        > In addition, a ward has the option to have another Attestor.

                        Yes, the Attestor does not have to be a parent/guardian. The child/ward
                        may have been working for/with some other Freeman and showing great
                        maturity and responsibility in such InterAction. Note the last sentence
                        of what the Attestor certifies in the NSC:

                        "Furthermore, I certify that I have been InterActing for a
                        significant length of time with the Executor in a manner not
                        significantly different than the ways in which I InterAct with other
                        Freemen and the Executor has been responding to such InterActions in
                        a manner not significantly different than would any Freeman."

                        > But say a ward wants another guardian due to not liking the person anymore,

                        Rationally, such a decision should be for more cogent reasons than
                        merely "not liking" the guardian anymore.

                        > and their current guardian disagrees, the
                        > best way to handle this would be for the new guardian to be the Attestor
                        > for this ward despite this ward being quite young?

                        Yes, but the reasons for the "dislike" and the decision of the Attestor
                        in agreeing with them and helping the ward escape the Ownership of hir
                        guardian, are all subject to Social Preferencing by all Connected
                        Freemen. In addition, the ward must be able to escape to the Real Estate
                        of the Attestor or otherwise Execute the NSC and get it Attested via the
                        UCN to make this happen. In theory the guardian could prevent any of
                        this by removing such Freedoms from the ward. Since the guardian is
                        effectively the Owner of the ward, this is not any kind of Violation,
                        but is only subject to the judgment and persuasive power of Social
                        Preferencing.

                        Again it needs to be understood just how highly influential and important
                        for moderating the Actions of all Freeman (ordering the Society) that
                        Social Preferencing will automatically be in a Freeman Society where:

                        1) There is *no* public or UnOwned Real Estate anywhere near those in
                        the society (else it would be of value and would have been claimed and
                        owned by some Freeman.
                        2) There are no laws requiring stores, Egress Real Estate (which
                        includes roads) or any other services to allow Freemen on their Real
                        Estate and to sell them services.
                        3) Each Freeman must have hir Identifying Information on the Universal
                        Communications Network (UCN - a generic term for something very much
                        like the current Internet except completely run by for-profit
                        organizations) to which will be linked all Social Preferencing reports
                        about hir by other Freemen. Such reports will always be backlinked so
                        that those reports also become part of the Actions on which the Social
                        Preferencers are also evaluated by other Freemen.
                        4) All Freeman will rationally be using intelligent software to monitor
                        the Actions of all those with whom they are Connected.

                        --Paul
                      • Paul Wakfer
                        ... Essentially yes, but I would have phrased it: A charge of Breach of the NSC can be made by any Freeman A against a Freeman B whom Freeman A thinks has
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 28, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                          > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >> Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                          >>
                          >>> Paul Wakfer wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>>> Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                          >>>>
                          >>>>> Hey Paul, I read your example on restitution killing, which you generated
                          >>>>> from an episode of "The Practice", and I was wondering if this scenario
                          >>>>> was to occur in a Freeman/NSC society, and it turned out where George
                          >>>>> wasn't killed and was found guilty, if Nancy could choose a death sentence
                          >>>>> of George for restitution?
                          >>>>>
                          >>>>> For those who want to read the restitution killing example, here is the
                          >>>>> link.
                          >>>>> http://morelife.org/lifequal/interpersonal/Restitutional_killing.html
                          >>>>>
                          >>>> Thanks for posting this question, Alton.
                          >>>>
                          >>>> The first thing that you and others need to realize is that the article
                          >>>> that I wrote on this example was done before the ideas of SelfSIP had
                          >>>> been fully discovered and formulated. I was still trying to use the
                          >>>> "rights" concept and language at that time. Even the first draft of the
                          >>>> Natural Social Contract contained elements (peonage) which were deleted
                          >>>> from the later and current NSC.
                          >>>>
                          >>> Yes, I remember you mentioning the removal of the peonage enjoinder
                          >>> from the interim SC and the NSC with the restitution agreement idea
                          >>> taking its place.
                          >>>
                          >> Actually it was not quite like that. It has been clear to me for over 40
                          >> years that restitution is the only rational response to harm done to one
                          >> by another, and it was already solidly a part of what is now called the
                          >> Interim Social Contract (a possible "stepping stone" to the full Freeman
                          >> Society) in virtually the same form as now in the NSC. However, at that
                          >> time I could not seen any method but a kind of bondage of the Violator
                          >> for ensuring that restitution was actually paid, and that was what I
                          >> called "Peonage". However, after Jack (David T Jackemeyer) objected
                          >> strongly to the whole idea of Peonage, and with further thinking having
                          >> been done about the strong effects of both negative Social Preferencing
                          >> and being expelled from the Freeman Society, I realized that there need
                          >> be nothing about Peonage in the Social Contract (which makes it a much
                          >> looser framework and more appealing to market anarchists). However, a
                          >> person who is expelled from being a Freeman may still voluntarily become
                          >> a peon to some Freeman (not necessarily the one whom s/he Violated), in
                          >> order to be able to still work within the Freeman Society, be able to
                          >> best effect Restitution and, thus, be able to again be a Freeman.
                          >>
                          >>>> Here is a new analysis of this very realistic situation using the full
                          >>>> principles of Social Meta-Needs Theory as implemented by the NSC and
                          >>>> Social Preferencing.
                          >>>>
                          >>>> Case 1
                          >>>>
                          >>>> Assumptions: All parties to the events have Executed the NSC and are
                          >>>> Members of the Freeman Society.
                          >>>>
                          >>>> 1. Under the NSC, any Intentional Violation of another Freeman is a
                          >>>> Breach of the NSC and is grounds for expulsion from the Freeman Society.
                          >>>> 2. George's rape and killing of Nancy's daughter is a Violation of Nancy
                          >>>> herself, since her daughter is her Property as defined by the NSC.
                          >>>> 3. Since the rape, at the least, must necessarily be clearly Intentional,
                          >>>> George can quickly be charged and convicted of Breach of the NSC, with
                          >>>> it only being necessary to prove that George did, in fact, Effectively
                          >>>> Caused these Events. (However, if he was a previous convicted child
                          >>>> molester, I can't see how he would have become a Freeman in the first
                          >>>> place. In order to be part of the Freeman Society, he would have needed
                          >>>> to be the "ward" of some Freeman.)
                          >>>>
                          >>>> Case 1.1
                          >>>>
                          >>>> 1. Someone brings a charge of Breach of NSC against George, and Nancy
                          >>>> waits for the Breach Trial to be completed.
                          >>>> 2. Once George has been declared to be no longer a Freeman, then any
                          >>>> Action upon him is no longer under the jurisdiction of the NSC, but
                          >>>> rather simply a matter for Social Preferencing to judge and adjudicate.
                          >>>>
                          >>> This means George is now subject to Nancy's restitution agreement right?
                          >>>
                          >> In the cases I did, I have not considered that Nancy wants any kind
                          >> of Restitution, but only wants revenge (to have George dead), partly
                          >> because such requirements are mutually contradictory. However, if Nancy
                          >> (after cooling down) decided that the more rational course is to require
                          >> as much Restitution as George is capable of producing in his Lifetime,
                          >> then that would be a part of a separate trial on a Charge by her
                          >> concerning the Responsible Harm that he has Effected to her. If you read
                          >> the NSC again you will see that the Charge of Breach of NSC is
                          >> completely separate from the Charge for the actual Violation and the
                          >> Restitution Request for that Violation (although I suppose they could be
                          >> both done during the same Trial).
                          >
                          > After rereading, I see that Charge of Breach of the NSC is a Freeman
                          > acting contrary to the NSC's Required Stipulations and Charge of the
                          > actual Violation is the event, in which the Freeman judged the Harm
                          > to himself by Freeman-B.

                          Essentially yes, but I would have phrased it:

                          A charge of Breach of the NSC can be made by any Freeman A against a
                          Freeman B whom Freeman A thinks has Acted contrary to the NSC's Required
                          Stipulations and a Charge of actual Violation is made by a Freeman C
                          (who could actually be Freeman A) who thinks that Freeman B's Actions
                          have Violated hir (caused Responsible Harm to Freeman C). Most
                          Violations only relate to the Freeman Violated, but a Breach of the NSC
                          is a Violation of all Freemen (since the NSC is a Valid Contract of all
                          with all) and a Charge for Breach may be brought by any Freeman. (When
                          one Executes the NSC, one becomes a Party to a Valid Contract with all
                          Freemen as the other Parties.)

                          meta
                          Deleted text agreed to and not needing any reply.
                          /meta

                          >>> And due to George
                          >>> being found guilty, John is subject to Nancy's restitution agreement.
                          >>> Am I right?
                          >>>
                          >> That is correct, but Nancy's "Restitution Requirement". It is not a
                          >> Restitution Agreement unless George agreed to it and Executed it as a
                          >> Valid Contract, which can only occur if the Dispute is Settled before
                          >> a Trial (see the definition of Restitution Agreement in the NSC:
                          >> http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#restitution_agreement).
                          >>
                          >> Note 1: There are highly importance distinctions between all the
                          >> capitalized terms of the NSC such as: Restitution Request, Restitution
                          >> Requirement and Restitution Agreement. Unless you read and clearly
                          >> understand such differences and their purposes, you have not yet fully
                          >> understood the operation of the NSC.
                          >
                          > I went back over the differences. I even see where Nancy could also
                          > view the loss of her daughter being UnRestitutable.

                          Yes, most likely she would - in her position, I certainly would, but
                          I would still try to get whatever value in Restitution George was
                          capable of producing.

                          > But say Nancy
                          > wanted George to be sentence to death by lethal injection, that would
                          > be the Restitution Agreement for George to accept before the Determination
                          > of a Trial?

                          Restitution Agreements are both prior to and *instead of* the initiation
                          of a Trial. Once a Trial is begun, a Valid Contract can no longer occur
                          because the Alleged Violator is effectively under Duress from the
                          Alleged Victim. However, yes in theory, George could Execute a Valid
                          Contract agreeing to accept a lethal injection (or any other method
                          of death inducement) by Nancy or some person who provides that kind
                          of service.

                          Note that in reviewing the NSC on the above points I have detected a
                          minor lack of sufficiently clear wording regarding Duress and
                          Restitution Agreement which I will soon fix.

                          > But if George does not accept it, and the Trial Determined
                          > him guilty of the Charge of Violation, this is where the Restitution
                          > Requirement is in effect. This is correct?

                          Yes. Whatever are the terms of the Restitution Requirement (except if
                          they would constitute a Breach of the NSC - of which suicide definitely
                          is not), they become a Requirement of the Violator (George in this
                          case) to satisfy if he wants to either remain a Freeman or become one
                          again (given that he is expelled because of a separate Charge of Breach
                          of NSC). Note that neither Nancy nor any other Freeman can actually
                          murder (kill without consent) - or otherwise Responsibly Harm - George
                          as long as he is a Freeman without themselves possibly incurring a
                          Charge of Breach of NSC (unless he has a Charge of Breach of NSC
                          against him upheld even after his death - since all Findings - his
                          ExFreeman Status, in this case - are retroactive to the time of the
                          Event related to the Finding).

                          Actually, I had not thought about it before, but it would be an
                          acceptable Restitution Requirement to demand that the Guilty party
                          commit suicide with or without the assistance of someone else. This
                          would essentially preclude George from ever becoming a Freeman again,
                          since not committing suicide would automatically make him open to a
                          Charge of Breach of NSC (he would not have satisfied a Restitution
                          Requirement). Such an extreme clause in a Restitution Requirement
                          would only be subject to the evaluation of Social Preferencing. As
                          stated before, George could still take refuge with any Freeman who
                          thought that having Ownership of George would be of some Benefit to
                          himself - and such Freeman would also be subject to Social
                          Preferencing.

                          >>>> Case 2.2
                          >>>>
                          >>>> Assumption: George is not the ward of any Freeman but has somehow gotten
                          >>>> onto the Real Estate of Freemen to take his nefarious Actions.
                          >>>>
                          >>>> 1. Any Action to such "outsider" is not under the jurisdiction of the
                          >>>> NSC, but strictly under the judgment of Social Preferencing.
                          >>>> Finally note that in all the above cases, if Nancy acts ahead of the
                          >>>> Verdict, she is taking a chance that George (or John) will not be found
                          >>>> Guilty, in which case, Nancy would have clearly Intentionally Violated
                          >>>> George (or John) and thus would be subject to a Charge of Breach of NSC.
                          >>>>
                          >>>> Other cases could involve a mixed situation where the Freeman Society
                          >>>> is embedded in some current society, but under all such cases if
                          >>>> either of Nancy or George are not Freemen, then the rules of both
                          >>>> societies would apply, so we would be back to the actual situation of
                          >>>> the original TV story.
                          >>>>
                          >>>> I expect that this will raise as many questions as it has answered,
                          >>>> so everyone do not be hesitant to pose them.
                          >>>>
                          >>> I think in general your case scenarios turned out to be clear answers
                          >>> for me :)
                          >>>
                          >> Good. This is the kind of practical situation and case study of which
                          >> I did one in a very exhaustive manner and have been waiting for someone
                          >> or more people to attempt others. I could do them all but that would
                          >> not be the best way for others to learn and show their understanding
                          >> by application to a practical problem. The whole set is organized at
                          >> their index page:
                          >> http://selfsip.org/solutions/interaction_examples/index.html
                          >> and the almost fully worked example of "UnRequested Action for Mutual
                          >> Benefit" is at:
                          >> http://selfsip.org/solutions/interaction_examples/intent_benefit/index.html
                          >> Think of all these examples as problems to be posed and solved by
                          >> students of the SelfSIP courseware. The Nancy/George example would fit
                          >> in the category: "Intentional Violation of Another" and I have placed a
                          >> link to this thread from the index page for that category of examples.
                          >>
                          >
                          > Thanks for the links. Maybe you can also have a test for students to
                          > measure their understanding of SelfSIP to go along with them reading
                          > these case examples and the SelfSIP website.

                          I will give that some thought. I had not done so mainly because the
                          number of people making comments and asking questions (effectively as
                          students of SelfSIP) has been so few. Also I have not because this is
                          just the thing (including a more courseware approach) that would be
                          best done using a wiki and help from more people. It is my desire to
                          see all of MoreLife.org and SelfSIP.org transferred to wiki
                          organization. I have made a start on this, but without some help I
                          cannot do it all or at least very, very slowly.

                          meta
                          Deleted more text not needing response.
                          /meta

                          --Paul
                        • Max Peto
                          My question and set of comments are inserted below where I thought it appropriate to the discussion. ... I think I understand what Paul is saying here: that
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 28, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            My question and set of comments are inserted below where I thought it
                            appropriate to the discussion.

                            Paul Wakfer wrote:
                            > Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                            >
                            >> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
                            >>
                            >>> Alton L wrote:
                            >>>
                            >>>> Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
                            >>>> of the NSC?
                            >>>
                            >>> There would be no minimum age. The only requirement is that the
                            >>> individual Executing the NSC has a Freeman Attestor (who acts as a kind
                            >>> of "sponsor"). If a person Executing the NSC was a "ward" then such
                            >>> Execution (with Attestment) automatically ends that "wardship". All
                            >>> actions of any guardian to prevent such a thing are under the adjudication
                            >>> of Social Preferencing just as are all Attestment sponsorship actions.
                            >>> Recall that in times past (prior to about 100 years ago), children could
                            >>> legally leave home at any age and establish themselves as independent
                            >>> persons.
                            >>>
                            >>> Again anyone please ask whatever further questions and make whatever
                            >>> comments come to mind when thinking about the ramifications of my
                            >>> statements.
                            >>>
                            >> This make sense since it enables guardians to self-govern their
                            >> children/wards and to choose the age or time they feel their ward is
                            >> ready to Execute the NSC.
                            >
                            > I don't quite see why you say this, since it is the *child/ward* who
                            > actually decides the time/circumstances when s/he is ready to become a
                            > Freeman. That is, unless the parent/guardian Abandons hir, which would
                            > be a Violation of the Owner of the Real Estate on which the ward is
                            > Abandoned, and, of course as with all actions, is subject to Social
                            > Preferencing by other Freemen, even if Abandoned in UnOwned space.

                            I think I understand what Paul is saying here: that Abandoning a child
                            implies that the parent/guardian must physically leave the child on some
                            Real Estate that is not Owned by the parent/guardian. However, all Real
                            Estate would be Owned by either the parent/guardian, or some other
                            Freeman (assuming there is no UnOwned Real Estate). Thus, there would be
                            no way for the parent/guardian to Abandon hir child/ward without
                            Violating some other Owner of Real Estate by Abandoning hir child/ward
                            on the Real Estate of another Freeman. Even if there exists UnOwned
                            space and the parent/guardian Abandons the child/ward there, the
                            parent/guardian would still be subject to Social Preferencing.

                            My question is this: if a child/ward is essentially treated as Property,
                            and the parent/guardian concludes that the providing for and teaching of
                            the ward/child will ultimately not optimally increase the guardian's
                            Lifetime Happiness, can the parent/guardian kill the child/ward without
                            Violating anyone (instead of Abandoning hir)? Of course, the
                            parent/guardian would still be subject to Social Preferencing for doing so.

                            Note that I likened this scenario to the decision to abort a pregnancy,
                            except that with an abortion, the killing is done before the child is
                            born. I have also heard of circumstances where giving medical treatment
                            to a child is unusually burdensome to the parent/guardian. Another
                            circumstance where a parent/guardian might come to this conclusion is
                            when it is discovered that after being born and maturing for several
                            years, a child/ward has some significant mental or physical defect that
                            causes the parent/guardian to not want to continue supporting the
                            child/ward.

                            meta
                            I have snipped the remainder of this message because I did not reply to
                            it specifically, and did not want someone else to make a reply to it
                            when the original message (the one I am now replying to) should be the
                            one that is addressed. I presume that the headers at the top of this
                            message will adequately inform the reader of the author of each comment
                            above (either Alton or Paul).

                            [meta
                            Yes, to the last sentence above. That is the function of the "who wrote"
                            lines with their correct level indication. When I respond to this, you
                            will be among the "who wrote" lines.
                            /meta --Paul]
                            /meta

                            --
                            Max Peto
                          • Paul Wakfer
                            ... Before responding to Max, I want to add the most important and most likely option of a parent/guardian for removing a child/ward from hir Ownership/care.
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 28, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Max Peto wrote:
                              > My question and set of comments are inserted below where I thought it
                              > appropriate to the discussion.
                              >
                              > Paul Wakfer wrote:
                              >
                              >> Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
                              >>
                              >>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
                              >>>
                              >>>> Alton L wrote:
                              >>>>
                              >>>>> Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
                              >>>>> of the NSC?
                              >>>>
                              >>>> There would be no minimum age. The only requirement is that the
                              >>>> individual Executing the NSC has a Freeman Attestor (who acts as a kind
                              >>>> of "sponsor"). If a person Executing the NSC was a "ward" then such
                              >>>> Execution (with Attestment) automatically ends that "wardship". All
                              >>>> actions of any guardian to prevent such a thing are under the adjudication
                              >>>> of Social Preferencing just as are all Attestment sponsorship actions.
                              >>>> Recall that in times past (prior to about 100 years ago), children could
                              >>>> legally leave home at any age and establish themselves as independent
                              >>>> persons.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Again anyone please ask whatever further questions and make whatever
                              >>>> comments come to mind when thinking about the ramifications of my
                              >>>> statements.
                              >>>>
                              >>> This make sense since it enables guardians to self-govern their
                              >>> children/wards and to choose the age or time they feel their ward is
                              >>> ready to Execute the NSC.
                              >>>
                              >> I don't quite see why you say this, since it is the *child/ward* who
                              >> actually decides the time/circumstances when s/he is ready to become a
                              >> Freeman. That is, unless the parent/guardian Abandons hir, which would
                              >> be a Violation of the Owner of the Real Estate on which the ward is
                              >> Abandoned, and, of course as with all actions, is subject to Social
                              >> Preferencing by other Freemen, even if Abandoned in UnOwned space.

                              Before responding to Max, I want to add the most important and most
                              likely option of a parent/guardian for removing a child/ward from hir
                              Ownership/care. Just as with any other Property - find someone else who
                              Values the Property more than you do and Exchange it to them. I want to
                              emphasize here that in a Freeman Society without all the laws,
                              regulations and other countless and subtle limitations of current
                              society, both from governments and from irrational social customs, there
                              would be very few Material Objects that would have no Value at all to no
                              one. In addition, there will undoubtedly still be charitable
                              organizations that will take in unwanted children and care for them as
                              best they can.

                              > I think I understand what Paul is saying here: that Abandoning a child
                              > implies that the parent/guardian must physically leave the child on some
                              > Real Estate that is not Owned by the parent/guardian.

                              Yes. That is actually the definition of Abandon for any Object (Material
                              Existent) - see http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#abandon

                              > However, all Real
                              > Estate would be Owned by either the parent/guardian, or some other
                              > Freeman (assuming there is no UnOwned Real Estate).

                              This is an invalid assumption. First, there is limitless Real Estate off
                              of the planet Earth, but second, if you read and understand the steps
                              Required to establish Ownership of some volume of space (to make it
                              become your Real Estate), then you will see that the creation of
                              Ownership of Real Estate is not without cost of time and money.
                              Therefore even on Earth there will likely be volumes of space that
                              remain UnOwned for some time.

                              > Thus, there would be
                              > no way for the parent/guardian to Abandon hir child/ward without
                              > Violating some other Owner of Real Estate by Abandoning hir child/ward
                              > on the Real Estate of another Freeman.

                              Yes, and even to be potentially subject to a Charge of Breach of NSC,
                              since s/he has Intentionally placed an Object on the Real Estate of
                              another Freeman without that Freeman's expressed Permission.

                              > Even if there exists UnOwned
                              > space and the parent/guardian Abandons the child/ward there, the
                              > parent/guardian would still be subject to Social Preferencing.

                              Yes, all actions are always subject to Social Preferencing even if they
                              are also Violations of another Freeman and/or Breaches of the NSC.

                              > My question is this: if a child/ward is essentially treated as Property,
                              > and the parent/guardian concludes that the providing for and teaching of
                              > the ward/child will ultimately not optimally increase the guardian's
                              > Lifetime Happiness, can the parent/guardian kill the child/ward without
                              > Violating anyone (instead of Abandoning hir)? Of course, the
                              > parent/guardian would still be subject to Social Preferencing for doing so.

                              Yes, as Property any action whatsoever may be taken on the child/ward.
                              But such an extreme action is highly unlikely both because of the strong
                              negative Social Preferencing incurred by it and the fact that any
                              Property of little or no Value (or even of a liability) to one person is
                              likely to have some Value to another person. Therefore, the Lifetime
                              Happiness of the parent/guardian is most of all likely to be optimally
                              increased by finding another guardian/Owner for the child/ward and
                              making an Exchange of Value with that other person.

                              Note that when constructing the NSC I wrestled for many months with a
                              class of humans who were not fully Freemen and yet were not merely
                              Property and I could not make it work (it was self-inconsistent). And
                              then I saw that strong Social Preferencing between highly Rational
                              Freemen was sufficient to cause all the necessary checks and balances on
                              extreme actions.

                              > Note that I likened this scenario to the decision to abort a pregnancy,
                              > except that with an abortion, the killing is done before the child is
                              > born.

                              It can also be likened to the possible treatment of pets by their
                              owners, but none of this "likening" to behaviors in current societies
                              really fits the Freeman Society, since only far more Rational people who
                              fully adopt strong and effective Social Preferencing will ever become
                              Freemen.

                              > I have also heard of circumstances where giving medical treatment
                              > to a child is unusually burdensome to the parent/guardian.

                              Which is what charitable organizations will help with.

                              > Another
                              > circumstance where a parent/guardian might come to this conclusion is
                              > when it is discovered that after being born and maturing for several
                              > years, a child/ward has some significant mental or physical defect that
                              > causes the parent/guardian to not want to continue supporting the
                              > child/ward.

                              But there are very few mental or physical defects that make a human
                              completely of no Value at all.

                              Max, Alton and others: We are tending to discuss only the more extreme
                              types of Actions that a Freeman would be Entitled to take (ie would not
                              be either Violations or Breach of NSC). While these definitely do need
                              to be discussed in time, I think that it would be more profitable to
                              first make sure that you fully understand that operation of the NSC and
                              Social Preferencing with respect to more common Actions such as
                              accidents, negligence, thefts, etc. -the simple everyday dispute
                              interactions which constantly occur in any society. Also of interest and
                              importance would be to discuss how everything would work when there is
                              no *public* Real Estate and, thus, Freeman need Permission to even leave
                              their own Real Estate.

                              --Paul

                              [Perhaps your questions/comments here arise as a result of so very many
                              children in the current society apparently not being the planned
                              consequences of well thought out decisions by their parent(s). This
                              would be rare in the Freeman Society. And the same would apply to
                              abortion. which would be much rarer because the stigma and difficulty
                              of single parenthood would be greatly reduced and their would be no
                              laws against the exchange of children (say to those who were infertile).
                              **Kitty]
                            • Paul Wakfer
                              ... From the location of this article (in the Interpersonal section of MoreLife.org), its creation date (at the bottom of every web page on our sites) and its
                              Message 14 of 14 , Feb 1, 2010
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Alton L" <junioreality@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hey Paul, I read your example on restitution killing, which you generated
                                > from an episode of "The Practice", and I was wondering if this scenario
                                > was to occur in a Freeman/NSC society, and it turned out where George
                                > wasn't killed and was found guilty, if Nancy could choose a death sentence
                                > of George for restitution?
                                >
                                > Also, what would be the minimum age for an individual to be a signatory
                                > of the NSC?
                                >
                                > For those who want to read the restitution killing example, here is the
                                > link.
                                > http://morelife.org/lifequal/interpersonal/Restitutional_killing.html
                                >
                                > Alton Lindsay Jr.

                                From the location of this article (in the Interpersonal section of
                                MoreLife.org), its creation date (at the bottom of every web page on
                                our sites) and its usage of the collective "our" as well as the nebulous
                                term "rights", it should have been clear to readers that this article
                                was written well before the complete discovery and elucidation of the
                                concepts underlying the Theory of Social Meta-Needs and its twin
                                implementations: Social Preferencing and the Natural Social Contract.
                                However, after the posts of this thread and some additional discussions,
                                I realized the urgent need to insert notes into the article explaining
                                its source and these relationships. That has now been done and readers
                                can read those notes in the newly uploaded page containing the article.
                                I will also likely insert some similar explanatory words in the brief
                                description of and link to this article in the Practice Index.

                                --Paul
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.