WHAT I CAN’T DISCUSS TOO MUCH

Because of the general nature of this article on Natural Monopoly I cannot very deeply discuss certain topics which deserve their own book.  “How I FOUND Freedom in an UNfree World” by Harry Browne leads up to and deals with it on pages 177-178, 208-209 and 212.

MY GOAL FOR YOU

What I can do is is fill in the cracks between existing freedom books and a new breakthru by Sara Burrows in an unlikely corner of Polyamorism as it relates to self owner ship and playing to strengths of methodological individualism, spontaneous order and human ignorance.

SOME COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE

Freedom is the opportunity to live your life as you want to live it. And that is possible, even if others remain as they are.

If you’re not free now, it might be because you’ve been preoccupied with the people or institutions that you feel have restrained your freedom. I’ll elaborate on why that problem exists in the last section of this article.

For now, I don’t expect you to stop worrying about them merely because of the following Natural Monopoly excerpt as it relates to non marriage, individual sovereignty, and Sara Burrow’s article. However for me it is a BREAKTHRU, inspiring prototype and proof of concept:

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why. Here’s how libertarianism has led me…

https://connect.liberty.me/polyamory-is-next-and-im-one-reason-why-heres-how-libertarianism-has-led-me

In the next section I’ll provide a copy of the Natural Monopoly excerpt that I did not realize till now applies to Sara’s ARTICLE.

After that I’ll lightly address the significance of Natural Monopoly.

I will then dissect it more thoroughly as it relates to those who oppose it’s significance to Polyamory and Libertarianism.

WHAT IS A NATURAL MONOPOLY?

The answer to the problem of restrictions is to find the relationship in which they’re unnecessary. When you find someone who is not only attractive and interesting, but very appropriate to you in most every way, you won’t need restrictions.

Competition will be irrelevant or absent if you find someone who wants and needs exactly what you are.

The urge to restrict stems from a feeling of vulnerability — the fear that someone else might offer more of what your lover wants and take attention away from you. If there isn’t an overwhelming mutual self-interest between you and your lover, you’ll continue to have that fear — no matter what restrictions are imposed.

But if your relationship is the result of mutual understanding, mutual interests, mutual views of the world — in short, if your lover is also your best friend — you won’t need restrictions because you’ll have very little to fear. You’ll have a natural monopoly upon the attentions of your lover.

ABC

And one of the ways of creating that is by letting him be free. [And making that possible with all the benefits that come from that]. If he can be free with you — free to say what he means, free to express his desires and secret feelings (even when they involve attraction to others), free to see whomever he chooses, free to do as he wants to do — then he’ll have less need to seek outothers. He’ll be getting from you most everything he needs. You’ll be the most important person in his world.

The paradox, in a sense, is that he’ll probably stay closer to home if you don’t demand that he stay home.

If you have a natural monopoly, access to others will be valuable to the relationship. For the more your lover associates with others, the more he’ll be aware that he gets much more from you than he can get from them. Only by being with others can he see that clearly.
But if you restrict his relationships, the opposite can happen. At a distance, many people can appear to be attractive, appropriate — even perfect. All their virtues will beckon, but none of their drawbacks will be apparent. That’s an undesirable position for you to be in; you’re being unrealistically compared with an ideal image. Let him go and find that out for himself.

LET ME BEGIN TO SPELL IT OUT FOR MYSELF AND YOU

2015-10-16 00.03.15

One of the reasons I like “Natural Monopoly” so well is that it is not tainted by association with a lot of preconceptions by people who have their heads firmly stuck in their own rectums and who have perhaps spent a life time being or shackling others and thus ultimately themselves.

I’ll get to that… See most recently Letter from AtlasAikido in comments of this article.

“…One of the reasons I like “agorism” so well is that it is [also] not tainted by association with a lot of past indiscretions by people…

But, look, type the word “agorism” on your Facebook status, or in a comment, and your computer probably identifies it as misspelt, depending on your browser and whether you’ve added this word to your dictionary. It is a new word.

Where did it come from? It comes from the word “agora” which is Greek for market place and forum or gathering place. It was used by Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3) to identify his economic and political philosophy of withdrawal from the state and entrepreneurship [with such]….

…Or you can invent a new one. I like “Indomitus” as a word for “not part of your system.” Or “not enslaved.” It is Latin for “savage” but it carries these other meanings. And we can make it mean what we want to.

So if you don’t like the word libertarianism. I don’t either. Or anarchy or agorism? Perhaps substitute Indomitus?

The Name Indomitus
http://www.indomitus.net/thename.html

Paraphrased Excerpt from Word Idolatry by Jim Davidson

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle563-20100328-03.html

HOW TO MESS UP

When I pointed to Natural Monoply as a consideration or aspect of Polyamorism minus the illusions of irresponsibility,  I got back and read from a blogger that this does not equate; and his latest is that restrictions such as Contracts are needed for love relationships.

It is based on a misguided concept of conflict, based on centralization and a hierarchical command structure.

You know who holds a post? Cannon fodder.

Osho calles them oxes…Indeed yoked beasts of burden. See Sara’s article.

You are thinking centralized and controlled. Think decentralized and outside of controlling others.

ANOTHER BREAKTHRU

Methodological Individualism and Spontaneous Order and Human Ignorance at the Relationship Level

There are always places to go.

ASSOCIATION AND SECESSION

You can win, by WITHDRAWING [in the manner Sara and her small group did].

The universe is infinite in all directions, said Freeman Dyson, and within your ability to move, it is CERTAINLY infinite ENOUGH.

What you perhaps lack is IMAGINATION to find better ways of accomplishing the same goals….such as say agreements that you yourself uphold instead of contracts making others perform!

I’ll get to that…

Some might say: You–Sara and your partner and kid–gone Injun, didn’t you? ~ Dancing with Wolves

According to some that’s a signature line for vulnerabilty, irresponsibilty, chaos and derision. What they need is to be fixed

To others like myself it’s proof of concept that she is much much more…

In some sense she is the female version of the Brave Heart protagonist William Wallace being described as a barbarian by a Latin-speaking advisor to the Princess of Wales during the opening of negotiations.

Wallace replies in Latin that he is a barbarian, “Sed ego sum homo indomitus,” and speaks proudly of it. 
  
Doing so shows that he is not intimidated by ancient languages nor confused by the early 14th Century concepts of education and enlightenment. 
 
Idiomatically, the phrase “sum homo indomitus” may be translated as “I am subject to no ruler,” or “I am unruled man,” or “I am outside the system.” 
 
Indeed, it is this notion of self-rule that is at the heart of the concept of Individual Sovereignty – Cooperation with the principles of the free market, respect for private property and individual liberty, without external coercion.
 
Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why. Here’s how libertarianism has led me…
 

PS I LIKE people who can explain and DO things better, using more reason and logic and imagination than their “peers” (who are usually more intent on “defending” the status quo, with untenable, illogical or just plain wrong ideas about things).

COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL

2015-09-20-13-17-08

Here is my take on Contracts as it relates to lovers, coparents and more here:

2015-11-08-22-41-29

Contracts are usually long standing; and complicated; with concerns about a person’s trust: not knowing who you are dealing with; and subject to Court Cronyism. And I have WITHDRAWN from such. I prefer the following route.

http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=611.msg1224#msg1224

Why is a Political Statement Needed?

Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle[3] are moral/ethical principles.
The basic or minimum requirement for peaceful interpersonal relationships[1] is understanding and adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), a very simple MORAL/ethical concept that is even readily understood by most children. But sometimes moral statements are not sufficiently explicit or not easily applied to particular situations. Because of varying education levels (there will ALWAYS BE children coming into adulthood), understanding the full consequences of moral statements and/or applying them consistently can become problematic. In larger groups of people, applying moral statements consistently becomes increasingly problematic–especially when modern-day sophists specialize in deliberately distorting and delight in twisting the meaning[4] of even something as simple and rational as the Non-Aggression Principle.

Minimum requirements for living peacefully amongst other people do NOT require a person to be “fully rational” nor to understand what moral/ethical principles ARE, nor even to understand what principles are! Education levels vary enormously as do levels of rationality! A characteristic of Political Statements—and a reason why they exist—is that they are more explicit than moral statements and consequently, are less vulnerable to innocent and/or malevolent “interpretations” and deliberate distortions and twisting.That important point is worth repeating:Rules of Conduct, such as a Political Statement or the last five of Moses’ Commandments, are MORE SPECIFIC AND CONCISE and considerably LESS ABSTRACT than moral principles, and are therefore less subject to misinterpretation and less liable to deliberate manipulation.The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a five point (Precepts) Political Statement of interpersonal relationships based on and explicitly derived from the single moral principle in the Non-Aggression Principle.As can be seen in the essays, articles and discussions in Footnote[5], The Covenant of Unanimous Consent reflects a very explicit, sovereign individual oriented morality.

Sent from my 4G LTE Device
1_03_07_09_10_57_42
Sent from my 4G LTE Device

ADDENDUM:

The following is outside the scope of this article but is does point out the two main reasons you are not free and perhaps a reason to get the book and to fully appreciate Sara Burrows BREAKTHRUS and fill in your own cracks? I believe she has her own book, which I have not reviewed yet.

Freedom is the opportunity to live your life as you want to live it. And that is possible, even if others remain as they are.

If you’re not free now, it might be because you’ve been preoccupied with the people or institutions that you feel have restrained your freedom.

I don’t expect you to stop worrying about them merely because I suggest you do.

I do hope to show you, though, that those people and institutions are relatively powerless to stop you — once you decide how you will achieve your freedom. There are things you can do to be free, and if you turn your attention to those things, no one will stand in your way. [See Bare Minimum Covenant of Unanimous Consent]

But when you become preoccupied with those who are blocking you, you overlook the many alternatives you could use to bypass them.

The freedom you seek is already available to you, but it has gone unnoticed. There probably are two basic reasons you haven’t taken advantage of that freedom. One reason is that you’re unaware of the many alternatives available to you. You don’t have to go to jail to avoid exorbitant taxes. Nor do you have to be a social leper if you refuse to knuckle under to social pressure. You don’t have to give up love in order to avoid complicated, restrictive family problems. And you don’t have to go without friends to avoid having your life at the disposal of others.

But if you’re unaware of additional alternatives, it’s easy to see these matters as being EITHER/OR questions. Fortunately, there are additional alternatives — ways by which you can have what you want without bringing bad consequences upon yourself.

The second reason you’re not free is because you’ve probably accepted without challenge certain assumptions that restrict your freedom.

Excerpted from “How I FOUND Freedom in an UNfree World” by Harry Browne.

The Hot War in the City

The Hot War in the City

Mal RoarkeOctober 14, 2015 , 3:20 pmReply

Bravo!!

It is gratifying on many levels to read and apply and LOVE and LIVE intellectually and viscerally what is alive in me and makes my life better:

There are two vocabulary words to understand in order to see the underlying DYNAMIC: disintermediation and equipotency.

I relate them to Secession and Association and to the following:

THIS excerpt of the THIRD precept of the Covenant Of Unanimous Consent would seem to apply to here:

Association and Secession

THIRD, that we shall hold inviolable those Relationships among Individuals which are **totally voluntary**, but conversely, any Relationship not thus **mutuall agreeable** shall be considered empty and invalid;

http://tinyurl.com/Covenant-and-Galts-Oath

Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle  (NAP/ZAP)
are moral/ethical principles.

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of interpersonal relationships explicitly derived from the Non-Aggression Principle, which is a Moral statement.

For an explanation of WHAT a political statement is–and WHY it is needed–go to

http://tinyurl.com/Political-Statement

To live together peacefully and productively:

Follow the Precepts of the Covenant and no “government” will be necessary;
Violate the Precepts of the Covenant and no amount of government will be sufficient.

LOL Those Uber barbarians went Injun didn’t they?

I like “Indomitus” as a word for “not part of your system.” Or “not enslaved.” It is Latin for “savage” but it carries these other meanings.

So I make the connection of BraveHeart’s Indomitus and Uber.

I can observe in my minds eye, millions of individual Uber producers and consumers as Brave Heart’s protagonist William Wallace being described as a barbarian by Latin-speaking advisor to the Princess of Wales [equivalents such as Yellow cab ] during the opening of negotiations.

Wallace replies in Latin that he is a barbarian, “Sed ego sum homo INDOMITUS,” and speaks proudly of it.

Doing so shows that he is not intimidated by ancient languages nor confused by the early 14th Century concepts of education and enlightenment.

Idiomatically, the phrase “sum homo INDOMITUS” may be translated as “I am subject to no ruler,” or “I am unruled man,” or “I am outside the system.”

Indeed, it is this notion of self-rule that is at the heart of the concept of Individual Sovereignty – Cooperation with the principles of the free market, respect for private property and individual liberty, without external coercion…

There is another libertarian Revolution quietly going on as it relates to Methodological Individualism, Spontaneous Order, so called Human Ignorance, Libertarianism AND

*1. Polyamory and small trading groups
https://connect.liberty.me/natural-monopoly/

AND

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why. Here’s how libertarianism has led me…

https://connect.liberty.me/polyamory-is-next-and-im-one-reason-why-heres-how-libertarianism-has-led-me

2. And the issue On CUC & The Secular Reactionary Anarcho-Capitalist Revolutionary at Cantwell–recently sums up that there are those who still continue with variations on the theme that the following is necessary to withdraw and move on  [Vote with one’s feet]

 “The State must be stopped, and if it will not stop on the basis of well reasoned demands, then it must be stopped by force.”

Dennis Lee Wilson Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent–responds:

You have overlooked other ALTERNATIVES.

Another alternative is best summed up by R. Buckminster Fuller: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality.  To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent offers such a model–and a peaceful one at that. When the Imperial Roman Empire finally died, many people had ALREADY abandoned Roman Law and worked out agreements or “covenants” with other people for mutual protection and trade–i.e. they had already built a new model that did NOT require a central government, and in fact, the model was to serve well for 1,000 years.

What can we learn from that example?

And how might we improve on it?

 Much can be learned from the current Amish and Mennonite colonies within the USA boundries.

I add here: What are the people like in this new town? What were the people like where you came from?

What is This Town Like? How settlers VIEWED their past relations was their SCOPE for their FUTURE ones until Fuller, Mises, Mcelroy, Tucker came along.

One school of thought leads to what Jeffrey Tucker and I are pointing to, which is those who want to fight the existing system seem unaware of what is at their feet?

https://lifeloveliberty.liberty.me/gun-control-and-why-we-cant-talk-like-adults-anymore/#comment-3

Broken link, find excerpt here:

The People Don’t Know Their True Power

The People Don’t Know Their True Power

3. And now I can add disintermediation and equipotency and https://tucker.liberty.me/the-hot-war-in-the-city/

Tucker YOU ARE An INDOMITUS!

ME too!! AtlasAikido, You barbarian you!

Thankyou

PS NB and help request. Re: Bleeding Edge: I am opening up another Technical Support ticket. This comment did not translate to my nor social feed. Anyone reading this is welcome to email or message me as this has been going on a few days now. I purged my browser cookies and cache and am using a different browser to no avail

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Sent from my 4G LTE Device