OpEdNews » No Free Market Implies No Hoax of Self-Correction

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Cooperation; Economic; Economics; Free Market; Free Trade; Freedom; Happiness; Law; Markets; People; (more...) Regulations; Rules; State; Thinking; Time; World; Writing (less...)
Add to My Group

February 19, 2008 at 10:38:05

No Free Market Implies No Hoax of Self-Correction

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer Page 2 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

"Self-regulation doesn’t infringe on freedom at all. It bestows more freedom. It frees us from negative emotions and self-defeating behaviors. Similarly, wise regulation of the economic world frees us from the tyranny of the corrupt."

Interestingly Peter begins the above with 3 very important true statements, very much related to what we have been saying in this article. However, "wise regulation" from without is not in any way similar to such self-regulation, and rather than freeing one from tyranny, because it is not voluntarily chosen by the individual, is merely another form of tyranny.

"The common good won’t be enshrined without a common will."

All human evaluations are necessarily individual to each and every human. There is no collective of humans which thinks, evaluates, chooses and acts as does an individual human. The concepts of "common good" and "common will" are anti-concepts that are undefinable for reality and are just as destructive to rational thought and to human society as are the oxymoronic notions of "common property" and "public goods".

Hopefully those who are serious about a better society than that which exists will give some serious thought to the errors we have pointed out above in Peter Michaelson's article - just some of many (often repetitious and self-contradictory), and in conjunction with doing so, will read "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction". That essay presents the basis for the paradigm shift in human thinking that is needed to develop a society in which individuals rationally interact to the mutual benefit of the highest lifetime happiness of each.

1 | 2

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

4 comments

Dietwald used to work as a journalist in Moscow for six months after having lived in a small Russian town for almost two years. His views are decidedly uncompromising in tone. If you are offended by his views, he is unlikely to care. He firmly believes that in a free society, everybody has the right to make a fool of himself to the best of his abilities.

(The generic use of the male human third person is meant to include all sentient beings capable of expressing their thoughts thro...

to see more of bio, click on member name
dietwaldclausDietwald used to work as a journalist in Moscow for six months after having lived in a small Russian town for almost two years. His views are decidedly uncompromising in tone. If you are offended by his views, he is unlikely to care. He firmly believes that in a free society, everybody has the right to make a fool of himself to the best of his abilities.

(The generic use of the male human third person is meant to include all sentient beings capable of expressing their thoughts thro...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Thank you

I was beginning to feel OpEdNews was rather predictable when it comes to economic commentary. Thank you for showing there are some sensible writers here, after all.

Very good article, even though it has the same feel of futility as the many good articles written by biologists in response to evolutionist non-sense.

by dietwaldclaus (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 6:08:22 AM

I am a professional life-extensionist and liberty promoter who practices what I and husband, Paul Wakfer, encourage. More detail about both of us - philosophically and physically - at http://morelife.org/personal/

When the comment time period has closed at OpEdNews.com, readers are welcome to post their comments/questions at MoreLife Yahoo after meeting the posting requirements of that group, sent to all new members upon joining. All archived messages, however, are available to anyo...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Kitty Antonik WakferI am a professional life-extensionist and liberty promoter who practices what I and husband, Paul Wakfer, encourage. More detail about both of us - philosophically and physically - at http://morelife.org/personal/

When the comment time period has closed at OpEdNews.com, readers are welcome to post their comments/questions at MoreLife Yahoo after meeting the posting requirements of that group, sent to all new members upon joining. All archived messages, however, are available to anyo...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Beyond Futility

"Very good article, even though it has the same feel of futility as the many good articles written by biologists in response to evolutionist non-sense."

Since it is very hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel when there is not any agreed tunnel with any agreed direction toward the light, I can understand why you wrote this comment. However, when we wrote:

"Unfortunately few have been able to discern such optimal human principles and practices, and no one to date has been able to convince enough people to follow them."

we purposefully used the words "few have been able" rather than "no one has been able" because we are convinced that we (mostly Paul) have both discovered and elucidated such "optimal human principles and practices". This is the subject matter of our website http://selfsip.org, most particularly starting with the seminal essay "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction"

While is it still true that we have not "been able to convince enough people to follow" our lead, all paradigm shifts in thinking begin with only those who discover the new ideas and start to convince others of their truth. We invite you to read our solution ideas, think deeply about them, try to find holes in them, ask questions about them and if you end up agreeing with us, become one of those who are promoting them. If one does not clearly define a destination and then actively plan a trip, one will always have nothing more than the futility of where one remains.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (22 articles, 4 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 124 comments) on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 3:38:40 PM

Darren Wolfe is the former Eastern Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. He grew up in Puerto Rico and lived in Venezuela for seven years, including the first year of Chavez' rule. His articles have appeared in OpEdNews.com, the Libertarian Penn, and the Nolanchart.com. News services such as the New York Post.com and Rational Review have published links to his work.

Anyone interested in a good game of chess can challenge me below, if you dare. LOL

http://...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Darren WolfeDarren Wolfe is the former Eastern Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. He grew up in Puerto Rico and lived in Venezuela for seven years, including the first year of Chavez' rule. His articles have appeared in OpEdNews.com, the Libertarian Penn, and the Nolanchart.com. News services such as the New York Post.com and Rational Review have published links to his work.

Anyone interested in a good game of chess can challenge me below, if you dare. LOL

http://...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Philosophy

Kitty,

After reading this article & perusing your website I'm impressed with what appears to be a nice synthesis of what are commonly considered two different approaches. You seem to have brought together the Randian & Rothbardian views. Am I reading you right?

I say the above as an Objectivist who has come to some very Anarcho-Capitalist conclusions.

BTW, excellent article. A nice rebuttal to the left- wing mythology based article Peter Michalson wrote.

by Darren Wolfe (7 articles, 191 quicklinks, 104 diaries, 765 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:32:13 PM

Social Philosophy Synthesis

We're glad to see, Darren, that you recognize that what we are presenting is a synthesis. We think is just that, and of the best that has been produced by various human minds - those who mostly have preceded us and our own two - in discovering and unambiguously specifying the principles by which human societies can function and prosper without coerced paternalism. While some form of the latter is the hallmark of all current societies and has been so throughout recorded history, we are convinced this is not necessary for achieving an ordered society in which each individual may optimally increase hir lifetime happiness, concurrently with all others doing the same.

The synthesis is more than that of Rand's Objectivism and Rothbard's libertarianism - there is also Utilitarianism (originated by Bentham). Paul noted this synthesis of ideas - plus many unique to himself - several years ago to George H Smith. (http://selfsip.org/dialogues/ghs/SSIPcritique.html ) Paul was attracted to the utilitarian idea, as an approach to optimizing human happiness, from his early 20s. The major problem with it, of course, was that all approaches to it (particularly those in the modern era) applied the socialist idea of taking from the haves to give to the have nots.

I and Paul abhor labels and stereotyping, and therefore do not use any labels for ourselves or accept those others may attempt to attach to us. The reason is that virtually all labels are very inadequate to describe all the nuances of a particular individual's thoughts and values.