<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Dec 2, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Jef Allbright wrote:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I would point out, again, that the context of rational decision-making,</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">including the scope of expected consequences (including interactees and</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">interactions over time), is what distinguishes "what works" from "what</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">is moral" and that this distinction is of vital importance to</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">implementing future systems of rational collaborative social</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">decision-making.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>I think we can either implement these systems</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">intentionally, or they will emerge from the marketplace via selection of</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">what works--if we don't self-destruct before then.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Strict libertarians will say that a free market is the pure, correct and</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">complete solution to this problem, but they tend to see growth as</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">originating from within, rather than emerging from effective interaction</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">between self and the adjacent possible. Deeper thinkers see that</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">intentionally cultivating a cooperative environment is just as important</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">as exploiting that environment. Thus my poetical exhortation to come</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">down from the pristine peaks to the more fecund mountain valleys.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-style-span">I haven't had time lately to participate in this discussion, but you're tugging my attention here. Perhaps you could comment on a personal problem: I was once told by a <I>Rational Emotive</I> therapist that I held an irrational belief that was causing me problems. It was the golden rule. Do "effective interaction" and "cultivating a cooperative environment" imply a need for empathy and/or a ban on aggression? Is the golden rule consistent with a rational society or a free market? -- Thomas</SPAN></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>