Freedom, Democracy and Multiple Paths

Part 1. Freedom of Thought: Virtue and Root of All Other Virtues

The person's action, behavior and life is a result of the mindset that he possesses; and the same is the case for societies. The people's beliefs, perspectives, perceptions and feelings and outlook that are their function shape the world they inhabit and the world they bequeath to their kids. The mindset, through actions done in its pursuance, becomes self-perpetuating and self-fulfilling. And the ideas shaping it become reflected in the nation at all its levels, shaping its social movements and its climate and ultimately the lives of all that are in it involved.

The mindset, however it came to pass, therefore becomes the ultimate and complete authority over the lives of the people within the civilization. It becomes so complete and encompassing that people don't question it, but are rather by it shaped. The mindset - whatever its origins, whatever its methods, whatever its function - becomes therefore a greater, more complete and more invasive power over the lives of the people than does the government. By shaping the minds of the people it shapes all their actions and then the world they create with these actions. As such it becomes the true authority of the land.

To be in any way regarded as democratic, an authority has to be balanced and checked and held accountable. In other words it must be official and open and complete and thus subject to accountability that comes from being brought open into the sun. An authority that is not official is an authority that becomes unaccountable, unchecked and unbalanced. Which means that it is well on its way to becoming totalitarian.

America, seeking rightfully to avoid totalitarianism, has applied checks and balances on all levels of official government. This has prevented any official organ of power from turning tyrannical and absolute. The same checks and balances, however, have not been applied on American society. They have not been applied on American communities; on American media; on American business; on American churches; and especially on American public opinion. Which means that totalitarianism has found a way to slip under the radar screen and through controlling the minds of people has found a way to create a de facto tyranny in a country that has been intended to be free.

I refer to this as conman's totalitarianism, precisely because it is unofficial. To people who think they are free under this arrangement, the correct question to ask is, "If you all are so free, then why are you all the same?" To go further: Why do you all dress the same, want the same things, believe the same lies, approach life with the same - mindset? And if you truly believe in freedom, then why are you so vehement in attacking anything that is in any way different from yourselves, whether these be the people within or the people without?

It makes no sense to create a country designed to be free of official tyranny when unofficial tyranny takes its place and exercises over people's minds (and thus over their lives, and over their civilization) a greater coercive power than is exercised by the President, Congress, Supreme Court and state and local government. It makes no sense to create a country designed to be free when the basic unit of human consciousness - the mind - is twisted into perpetuation of a big lie. To be democratic, authority - all authority - must be official, checked and balanced, and thus accountable. And in standing up to conman's totalitarianism in all its aspects, one does one's duty as a true American citizen.

Freedom of thought is at the basis of all other virtues. Freedom of thought means true freedom; freedom that shapes one's mind and radiating out of it one's life and one's actions within the world. Freedom is prerequisite for knowledge; as it is only within the context of freedom that one can be free to acquire true understanding, one not shaped or manipulated by usurpatory interest or mindset of any kind. Knowledge, in turn, is a prerequisite for responsibility and ethics; as it is only through knowledge that one can understand the world enough to know the full range of consequences of one's actions and then act in a manner that's calculated and thus could regard itself responsible. And it is only a choice that is calculated and informed that can consider itself ethical, as it is only by knowing the consequences of one's actions and taking responsibility for them that it is possible to make a choice based on values.

By transitive rule, freedom is a prerequisite for ethics; as it is only within context of freedom that it is possible to make choices, not based on avoiding or anticipating consequences for self, but rather because they are the right thing to do. And freedom of thought, being the root of all other freedoms, becomes the prerequisite for ethics.

Thus, it is impossible to have ethics, responsibility, or any other virtues we see people claim to profess to believe without freedom and knowledge. And it is impossible to have actual freedom and knowledge without freedom of thought.

Which means the following: That it is only through freedom from the oppressive mindset that it is possible to attain to any kind of virtue. And that in freeing people from conman's totalitarianism one does sacred duty before ethics, responsibility, knowledge, and America.

Freedom of thought has another virtue that is just as real. It is freedom of thought that allows people to see what others don't see. This has multiple applications. The first of these is that it corrects errors that happen when people think the same way and exposes them to perspectives they need to think better and understand the world more completely. But it does this furthermore: Become the root of all innovation that exists in the world. Which innovation depends on people to come up with new ideas that are a result of original perspectives.

And it is this innovation that is at the root of all manmade good that exists in the world.

Therefore freedom of thought is not only at the root of all other virtues (liberty; knowledge; responsibility and ethics) that are espoused by America. It also is the reason the world has what it has now. And as such, it is the true and unshakeable source of not only moral good, but physical and political and technological and artistic good. Which makes it, quite truly, the saving grace of humanity and the reason for all it has accomplished.

Part 2. Absolute Case for Democracy

I say not only that it is man's right to be free of all forms of unofficial authority. I say that it is man's DUTY to do so - duty before America and the Republic For Which It Stands. I say that any mindset that is unwritten and unofficial, is unaccountable, unchecked and unbalanced, and as such lacking accountability becomes tyrannical. And that any serious interpretation of democracy - also of life and liberty - requires a citizenry that is aware of all unofficial forms of tyranny and stands against it.

Whether that tyranny be the mindset of Fort Wayne, Indiana, or the mores of the average East Coast suburb, or the mindset of gangs.

I do not advocate freedom of thought as a form of rebellion. I advocate it in and of itself, as a virtue, and the necessary condition for all other virtues. I embrace it passionately and completely, not as a matter of contrarianism but for its own sake and for the sake of all else that requires it - all the other virtues stated above.

And I say quite clearly that true democracy and true liberty demands a passionate, unconditional and absolute embrace of the freedom of thought - as the true accomplishment of civilization and the core of all its stated virtues.

In many cases, the arguments for democracy have been the wrong ones. Relativism - the belief that all things are uncertain, and that certainty is what distinguishes totalitarianism from democracy - is a flimsy justification for democracy. Indeed it is a definition that opens democracy to accusations of cowardice and corruption and serves not democracy but totalitarianism of a creeping kind. The only true, moral, absolute basis for democracy is absolute conviction in absolute rightness of human freedom. And that means absolute, unconditional and passionate embrace of freedom of thought. In and of itself and as a basis for all other virtues.

The freedom of thought is the most fundamental of human liberties. And freedom of thought involves also freedom of personhood. And radiating out of that freedom of thought and freedom of personhood come all other freedoms and all other virtues. It is impossible to have a country that one proclaims free when there is no freedom of thought, self-definition, emotion and personality. It is impossible to have a country that one proclaims free when official totalitarianism is replaced with unofficial totalitarianism of a mindset controlling people's minds, hearts, spirits and personalities.

And in freeing people from such unofficial totalitarianism it becomes possible to arrive at population that is truly free. Freedom is therefore a necessary condition for all other virtues. And in affirming, passionately and absolutely, the freedom of thought, one affirms likewise all other virtues. Which then becomes the absolute and unshakeable ethical foundation for democracy, and, as I have just shown, the root of all human attainment. One that is far superior to the conman's ideology of relativism - and one that possesses enough strength to combat the threats to democracy, both external ones and internal, that we see today.

It is of course unavoidable that mindsets will come about. Recognizing their power of authority over people's lives, I thus postulate applying to them the same logic that has been applied rightfully and successfully to the branches of American government; The logic of checks-and-balances. Seeing in all mindsets - as in all governmental organs - the capacity for both right and wrong, I seek to subject mindsets to the same accountability as is done to American government.

Making them known and official is the first step.

Part 3. Ideology and Psychology

Scott Peck described as "neurotics" the people who take responsibility for things that are not their responsibility - and as "character disordered" the people who do not take responsibility for things that are.

My response: The issue in many cases is not psychological but ideological, and the ideological explanation is both simpler and more precise than the psychological one.

It may come as a surprise to people who think in terms of emotional forces, but one's conscious beliefs have a fair amount of things to do with how one relates to the world. And these conscious beliefs differ tremendously in what is believed to be one's own responsibility; what is believed to be the next person's responsibility; what is believed to be the government's responsibility; or what responsibility is shared, to what extent and among whom.

Do you remember Beatles' song, "Hey Jude, don't carry the world upon your shoulders?" The "carrying the world upon your shoulders" appears to be a quite common - ahem - neurosis among people with particular ideologies. Let me ask you a stupid question. Was Jude an objectivist? A libertarian? Could he have been these things? Or was he a liberal whose self was identified with the good of the world, who believed in shared responsibility, and who found life meaningless for himself and intolerable for all unless the world was in a good shape?

I ask another stupid question. What is the responsibility of any given person, for what, and according to whom? We see people fight over this issue all the time. We see people shunting the responsibility at someone else; we also see people taking responsibility for one or another issue, or cause, or project, or society, or outcome, that many would say is not their responsibility - but that, without someone taking responsibility for it, would never get accomplished at all. Are the first group character-disordered? Are the second group neurotics? Or is this something that people have been doing for as long as - well, for as long as there was a responsibility to shunt one way or another, which is to say for as long as there were people?

Remember Communism? These were the people who believed that responsibility was shared and a part of each citizen as well as humanity as a whole. Indeed the same ideology was mouthed once by American leaders, from FDR to Kennedy - and now, guess who - Mr. Compassionate Conservative. Were these people possessive of character disorders? Were they pushing on America a mass neurosis? Or did they simply recognize that responsibility in any given society contains both the individual and the shared aspect - something that was articulated by Mr. Theodore Roosevelt of all people, long before these - ahem - supposed sociopaths took these ideas to such places as "The only thing to fear is fear itself," "Do not ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" and "Mr. Putin has a good soul."

Indeed I am of the belief that each ideology arrives at its own peculiar mix of supposed character disorder and neurosis. The people who believe in shared responsibility will be described by people who believe in individual responsibility as both taking responsibility for things that aren't their fault and not taking responsibility for things that are. The same is the case the other way around.

I ask the final question. Where does your responsibility stop and another person's responsibility begin? What is responsibility of which citizen or which entity or which collection of citizens or entities? I've had people tell me that I had a responsibility to myself, and to tell me what that responsibility was. I've had people grow exasperated because I kept saying that I was not interested in things in which an American citizen is supposed to be interested and in pursuit of which he is supposed to expend his life. Let me get this straight. You tell me what I owe myself? You tell me what I should want and what I should strive for? And then you claim that we are living in a free country?

A person who believes in every person being completely responsible for his life will be both a character disorder and a neurotic. He will strive obsessively to be completely at top of everything, including things that he can do precious nothing about; and he will do nothing to contribute to shared good. That similar characterization will be frequently made for people who believe in shared responsibility, needs no elaboration. So this is my question to Mr. Peck: Where does one person's responsibility end and another's begin? Where does one entity's responsibility end and another begin? What responsibility belongs to individual, to country, or to one or another entity?

And what does a healthy character do to determine which delineation and which ideology is legitimate?

There are two directions of interest in any human being. One is self-interest; the other is other-interest. The I-Thou duality manifests in concern for self and concern for the next person or for the world. The two components can be arranged in many different ways. I am seeking a better way to arrange them.

Part 4. Self-Interest and Other-Interest

The evolutionary theory supposes that man has evolved both as species and as self. That is, man exists as part of humanity and as his own unique self, and interests of both are combined. Man competes against other men, but he also serves mankind. The error made by tribal, or statist, or religious ideologies, is to claim man as solely part of humanity; the error made by Ayn Rand and Nietzsche is to claim man as solely himself. Both are half-right. Man exists as himself and as part of humanity.

Which means the following: That man's orientation to the world consists of self-interest and other-interest. Both are absolutely legitimate and natural and worthwhile.

Currently in America we are seeing the worst possible combination of the two. The other-interest is to attack in man all that is original and all that is his own and all that is different from that of his neighbor - in essence, all things that a man stands to contribute and all that in him makes for meaningful liberty and existence worth having. The self-interest meanwhile, under the rubric of liberty - the liberty that I've just shown the same people to deny others in any meaningful form - is used to attack man's ability to engage in any collective political or philanthropic action to improve the lot of one's fellow man. The concept of "selfishness" gained from collectivist ideologies is misused to attack all meaningful liberty - especially anyone whose thoughts, beliefs, feelings and interest differ from that of those who claim to represent social interest. Meanwhile the concept of liberty gained from capitalist ideologies - the liberty that, as I've just shown, is denied to most people in any meaningful manner - is misused to attack any collective action that seeks to give people a way to a better existence. Thus we have the worst of all possible arrangements: People formulated on the inside, with all meaningful freedom and goodness and originality and beauty forbidden - and the fear of collective action denying people political power necessary to actually improve their condition, while forcing these people to compete against one another and be isolated from one another and being more and more ensnared in a culture of consumer coercion that claims to give liberty while essentially binding the person for life.

Ayn Rand offered a way out of this arrangement: Complete self-interest and interaction among people based on even exchange within the framework of rule of law. Socialism offers another way out of this arrangement: Collectivization of all economic activity and unified push for common good. Both are half-right. There is self-interest and species-interest, and the way for human benefit - both at self level and at species level - is to allow people to do the most toward both.

This means arranging existents in a way that makes the best existence. This means making the best of self-interest and best of collective interest: Meaningful liberty, with freedom of thought and feeling and being and choice - and provident, species-directed activity that does actual and noticeable good to the people who live now or are yet to live. This means making the best of one's life and the best of what one does for humanity. And it means affirming both individual life, liberty and human rights, while affirming also constructive and beneficial action toward benefit of mankind, both those living and those yet to live.

Liberty does not mean gobbling up and polluting the world without sight for the rest of the world or for future generations. Liberty means freedom to think how one chooses to think, feel how one chooses to feel, be what one chooses to be and select what one has to contribute. And common good does not mean turning the people into replicas of oneself or destroying in them what they themselves uniquely are capable of being or dictating to them what they can be or how they can live. Common good means sustainable development, technological solutions that fulfill material needs while impinging minimally on health of nature or people, meaningful education of children, scientific knowledge, taking care of the elderly, philanthropic work, helping those who are not advantaged to have a shot at existence worth having, producing thought or artwork or products or architecture that enrich people's worlds and create legacy for the future, and pursuing goals that actually lead to improvement in lives of humanity. It means being of service to others and to one another; while allowing for each other complete freedom of thought, feeling and being - and, from this position of true, actual, meaningful liberty, to interact as actually free people who, as such, also rightfully see the need for improving life for the existing and the yet-to-exist.

In essence then, the concept of liberty and the concept of common good must be redefined, from the worst possible form we've seen in 1980s and 1990s to a form that makes the best life for man and the best life for humanity. Instead of the enslaving and short-sighted models of thought we have seen, will be necessary models of thought that are liberating, benign, prudent and leading to the best life, both for the existing and the yet-to-exist, as much as for humanity at individual level and as a whole. It is through this arrangement of existence that life can be elevated to a state beneficial both to man and to mankind.

I do not believe in treating everyone the way I want to be treated. I do not believe in introjecting my needs, wants and personality into everyone around me and bludgeoning them into being carbon copy of myself. I do not believe that the world is made best by there being 6 billion Ilya Shambat's, or Mike Tyson's, or George Bush's, or Dilbert's, or Beaver Cleaver's, or Joe Blow's. I believe in human individuality and as a result of it different needs, wants and mindsets that are to people most natural and most enhancing of them expressing their potentiality.

As such, I believe in treating the next person the way they, not I, want to be treated.

And that is the categorical imperative that I seek to serve.

Part 5. Forms of Rational Interest

There is a presumption among many, pursuant classical economics, that people are driven what is called rational self-interest, which is equated with interest in accumulation of property. That is an article of faith that falls apart under examination.

From the position of each person, in reference to the world, there is perspective toward self and perspective toward others. In relation to which, each person can be said to possess self-interest and other-interest. There are some people - including Ayn Rand - who believe that man is only himself and that all interest is a form of self-interest. There are others who believe that man is evolved as part of humanity and that therefore that all interest is a form of species-interest. Of course there are both, and it functions differently in different people. If humanity has evolved, then it has done so both as individuals and as species; which means that interest in one's own good and interest in the good of the species are part of human makeup. And any creationist worldview likewise recognizes the same: That there is man; that there is mankind; and that man is both man and part of mankind.

Furthermore, for each person, self-interest is different. There are unquestionably some who are driven by property; but there are many others who are driven by interest in knowledge and wisdom, or by interest in legacy, or by interest in service, or by interest in beautiful life, or by interest in improving their lives or the lives of others in ways that matter to them. The scientist who is driven by interest in knowledge is just as rational, if not more so, than the person who is interested in accumulation of wealth. The teacher who is driven by interest in raising the future generation is just as rational, if not more so, than either of the preceding. The environmentalist who seeks to preserve for the future generations the masterpieces of life that man cannot recreate and that are necessary for healthy future is also rational. The policeman or military officer or diplomat who is driven by interest in securing peace for his community or serving his country is likewise driven by a perfectly rational interest. And the same is the case for the people interested in making life more just, or in creating sustainable development, or in guiding people who are disenfranchised to better places, or in developing new ideas that can improve lives for many other people, or in helping people have better relationships, or in creating beautiful work that celebrates the world and enriches the lives of the members and gives it legitimate sense of accomplishment and inspires the future generations to similar and greater heights.

A new useful theory in psychology is a theory of multiple intelligences. This theory states that there are many different forms of intellect of which people are capable, and that different people have different intelligences to different extents. Thus, there is no single function for intelligence; there are many functions for intelligence. The same is true for the natures that are present within humanity; and pursuant them the interest they have most need of fulfilling, the interest they are most interested in pursuing, and the liberty that is to them most dear.

There are people who are fulfilled by property; there are others who are fulfilled by achievement, legacy, service, meaning, beautiful relationships, wholesome family life, and wisdom and intellect that cater to and make possible the preceding. The good of the existing and yet to exist is enhanced by there being talented and dedicated people in education and police work and diplomacy; it is enhanced by there being wisdom that helps people to be empowered for personal happiness and people dedicated to helping people to actualize that wisdom. It is enhanced through sustainable development that uses high-technology, high-intelligence abundant clean energy to fulfill the physical requirements of the world of civilization that man has created while reducing imprint on world of nature that man has not. It is enhanced by there being great works of architecture and technology and science and medicine and space program and music and film and graphic arts. It is enhanced by all forms of intelligence having a path to impart of their riches, in the act of fulfilling the form of interest that they are most competent to fulfill. Indeed all these are legitimate aspects of human existence, and they are enhanced by people taking the path to which they are most suited - applying the form of intellect they have the most - to fulfilling the nature and interest of the people that they have most aptitude to fulfill and whose fulfillment they find most meaningful - and being likewise compensated for their efforts in a way that matters to them.

The concept behind economics is that happiness is actualized through people fulfilling their monetary self-interest. Given the multiple forms of human nature, it can be said better that happiness is actualized through people fulfilling their interest, whether it be monetarily denominated or not, as a function of the natures that live within them and the interests that are present as a result. Which means the following: There are many rational forms of interest, both self-interest and other-interest, and to reduce the totality of human existence to one out of many forms of interest is to do humanity a grave disservice. Quite simply, it is wrong to believe that everyone has single form of interest, whether self-interest or not and whether rational or not.

This is the same error that was made by Marx in assuming that there is a single value function of collective benefit, and that people would pursue it if properly educated or coerced by force. The diverseness of people and the multiple levels of human nature mean that there are many legitimate, informed and rational forms of interest, both self-directed and other-directed, as function of those levels of nature; and that happiness means different things for different people, as function of both having those levels of nature fulfilled by other people's agency - and imparting of gifts that their natures are most competent to impart.

Given these multiple levels of human nature and human interest, it further follows that people have different basic values and derive meaningful existence from participation different pursuits. And thus people find life that is worth living, on individual basis, by finding a way to path that is suited for them according to their nature. Given these multiple levels of human nature and human interest, furthermore, it follows that freedom means different things to different people. This is likewise is inevitable from the fact that there are multiple forms of human nature, which are present in different people to different extents. The government is prevented from becoming tyrannical through different branches of government working within framework of checks-and-balances. And liberty, as it matters to people on individual basis, is served through mindsets and interests doing the same thing among each other.

Therefore, a civilization that truly allows meaningful life, inclusive liberty and pursuit of happiness for its citizens as it matters to them on the individual basis is one that recognizes multiple levels of human nature and allows for all of them a functional and legitimate path that allows people to apply their talents to fulfilling the forms of interest that they are most equipped to fulfill - and from which other people can have accomplished the form of utility that matters to their own natures.

Given the multiplicity of human natures and talents and intelligences and interests within humanity, it therefore is incorrect to believe that the entire human nature can be reduced to a single form of interest or single definition of freedom or single definition of meaningful existence. There are many forms of rational and legitimate interest, both self-interest and other-interest, and they are natural to different people to different extents. In making a single approach - a result of addressing a single form of interest - universal, what is accomplished is bludgeoning people into the same mentality and the same supposed nature and supposed interest, even if it is to them completely ill-fitting. Which does not serve any liberty or happiness or even life worthy of having, and is only done through extreme disfigurement, which requires in many cases coercive and malicious tactics. What is created, is a single mindset that is bullied into the heads of everyone, and a single path controlling everyone's minds and efforts and ultimately, by becoming the substance of their minds, controlling their lives that are a function of their minds in pursuit of these indoctrinated beliefs. And what is accomplished is, in effect, de facto tyranny; a tyranny of a single mindset, bludgeoned into everyone's heads, and in that manner controlling the reality of everyone's lives.

I believe that life and liberty and happiness deserve better.

Part 6. Multiple Paths

I do not advocate socialism, and I do not advocate communism. I advocate something that builds on the status quo, based on what has worked well in it. I am applying here two concepts that have worked wonders: The concept of competition and the concept of checks-and-balances. I take it to a higher level. And that is as follows:

For there to be multiple paths based on fulfillment of multiple forms of self-interest and other-interest, is to achieve, through these paths struggling among each other, the optimal outcome for the people -

As they check and balance among each other, for them to prevent any form of nature or mindset from being tyrannical and thus to create meaningful freedom -

And in the process allowing people to find the place in these paths in which they, according to their talents and propensities, contribute their best toward that outcome and thus have fulfilling lives.

Now I am saying this based on the computation that, as far as a people's good is affected - the good that is a result of the natures that are present in them and thus of the form of interest that is to them most significant - there are many forms of good that can be created, which serve the totality of human nature and thus the totality of human happiness.

The multiple forms of human nature means this: That there are many forms of good that people are capable of fulfilling; and many others that they would demand. The multiple natures and multiple intelligences mean that there are different things that people legitimately may demand, and different things that they may be equipped to supply. "Things" here do not merely mean consumable goods; they also mean anything that can fulfill one or another form of nature, mindset and interest. They mean everything from physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual nourishment, to addressing common concerns, to educating the youth, to improving relationships, to creating embodied artistic, architectural, technological and literary legacy of the civilization.

To address which are created multiple paths, in which people contribute the intelligence that they have most present to fulfill the interest they are most suited to fulfill and most interested in fulfilling, and from addressing which interest the people derive most meaning and thus arrive at most meaningful life.

And as they struggle among each other - as do branches of American government within the context of checks-and-balances - they ensure that none of them (and with that, neither interest; neither approach; neither intelligence; neither nature) becomes omnipotent and tyrannical, and that true liberty of people is served.

With there being multiple forms of interest, and there being paths catering to those interests, it becomes possible further for people on individual basis to find freedom that is significant for them. The entirety of human nature is fulfilled; and the entirety of human intelligence and talent is given a practical, free way to be actualized. This is done using the mechanisms that have worked already- the mechanisms of competition and checks-and-balances. Rather than concentrating power, as did Marx in his errors, it in fact diffuses it among paths. Which, as they struggle among each other, make each other create the best outcome; and, as they check-and-balance each other, not only protect liberty but take it to a far more inclusive place.

By paths, I mean business; I mean education and academia; I mean science and technology; I mean policing and diplomacy and legitimate civil service; I mean thought and service that improves people's lives and relationships; I mean high-technology clean-energy solutions that extend the future of the world while fulfilling the present; and I mean artwork and architecture that becomes the embodied legacy of the civilization, that adorns it, enriches the lives of its members, gives the civilization a legitimate sense of accomplishment, and inspires the yet-to-exist. All these are legitimate and rational pursuits, both involving different forms of intelligence as present in humanity and through expression of these intelligences providing fulfillment for sets of human nature that they are most equipped to fulfill. All of them are valid, but neither of them has right to absolute authority or to claim the interest it serves or mindset it furthers to be definitive. And that it is by all of these paths existing and struggling among each other that is served both the outcome (through mechanism of competition) and liberty (through mechanism of checks-and-balances, here applied by paths upon each other).

Which means that through competition among paths is accomplished optimal outcome; that happiness as fulfillment of all forms of nature and interest is attained; that more inclusive liberty - is served, with neither approach being definitive and tyrannical; that meaningful life becomes a reality for more and more people as they find ways to paths that the forms of intelligence they possess are most equipped for, and that people have way to contribute the form of intelligence (or labor, or talent, or any other form of potential) in which they are most endowed.

In mathematics there is a concept known as game theory. Based on it, the participants in a system seek to maximize their benefit, and some solutions benefit some at expense of others and others maximize the benefit of all. The solution known as Pareto-optimal is the outcome in which the interest of one can only be increased by harming another's interest to a greater extent. And the goal of the so-called game - which of course is completely serious - is to attain that Pareto-optimal outcome: The outcome that is regarded as the optimal solution to the game.

Each path - as defined above - fulfills the mindset that is appropriate to it and a basic interest, self-directed or other-directed, that is most present in each individual and that is most significant to him or her. It allows people to actualize in the process the forms of intelligence and talent in them and gives them a legitimate way to impart of their fruits. And in so doing they fulfill the entirety of human nature - by the entirety of human intelligence finding a way to contribute to the outcome. The result is the optimal one: One in which people find ways to achieve according to their basic form of intelligence - and the entirety of human interest is served through their efforts.

That means, optimal on both demand side and on supply side. Optimal in the level of human fulfillment accomplished on the demand side - through what is created by different paths to serve different levels of human nature and interest, and in the levels and the completeness of self-interest and human nature that their efforts serve. And optimal on the supply side - through people involving themselves in pursuits that serve the level of human nature and interest that their talents are most competent to address and that their values are most interested in fulfilling.

I involve in this situation concepts, once again, that are behind the greatest economic and political accomplishments in history: The concept of competition and the concept of checks-and-balances. As paths compete with each other, they are made to create the optimal outcome, while people find the way to contribute their optimal by finding place in paths that actualize their form of intelligence. And as they struggle among each other within a framework of nderstanding of each other's roles, they exert checks-and-balance upon each other, making sure that neither become tyrannical, and that liberty and life in people are protected and actualized at the highest possible level.

This is not Communism. This is not socialism. This is America's principles taken to the next level. This is not increase of control but its reduction. And this is furthermore something that increases rather than decreasing liberty, happiness and meaningful life, by logic shown above.

The multiple intelligences among people; multiple forms of human interest, both self-interest and other-interest; multiple mindsets and talents and outlooks; mean that life, liberty and happiness are accomplished by there being a functional way to fulfill these interests - through people using the forms of intelligence of which they have in most abundance finding their way to paths that fulfill these interests. There are multiple forms of human nature, and making the most of human existence consists of acknowledging and valuing all these forms of nature and giving them a way to be fulfilled within a legal framework. As function of these forms of human nature, there are many legitimate forms of interest, both self-interest and other-interest, and making the most of human existence consists of acknowledging and valuing all of these interests and giving them a way to both be legitimately fulfilled. As function of there being multiple forms of intelligence, there are many legitimate paths in which people can give of the form of intelligence that they have in the greatest abundance; as function of there being multiple values and outlooks, people find way to pursuits that to them are most meaningful. And through there being multiple paths, which struggle among each other, is made the highest outcome created - while, as they struggle among each other, they destroy tyranny and stranglehold of a single mindset and make liberty that matters to people on individual basis a reality for more people.

The success of free-market economics is based on the businesses having to strive to achieve best product, and people finding ways to contribute according to their gifts. The success of check-and-balances system of governance is based on the branches of government checking each other in order that none should become tyrannical or unconstitutional. I am taking the logic of both and applying it to the next level:

That many paths - all fulfilling different forms of interest - are necessary for the fulfillment of the entire thing that is human nature and human interest;

That through struggling among each other they are made to produce their best outcome;

That through there being multiple paths that check each other the tyranny of a single mindset or interest or attitude or approach to life is averted;

That as a result of this there is meaningful choice and meaningful life and liberty;

That people working within these paths use their intelligence and their efforts to feed the form of happiness that they are most equipped to impart;

And that people finding a way to involve themselves in these paths, according to the forms of intelligence and talent and mindset that is to them most appropriate, is the way to make the entirety of the human creature bear fruit and, through these efforts, fulfill the entirety of human nature.

Thus, it becomes possible to achieve happiness as fulfillment of the entirety of human interest - through people finding the way to the paths that utilize the intelligence that they have in greatest abundance and through work in those paths fulfilling the interest they are most suited to fulfill -

That through competition among these paths brings them to optimize their product and accomplish the best outcome -

While the logic of checks-and-balances allows multiple mindsets bring them to balance among each other and check each other and make sure that none ever become tyrannical, thus achieving the maximum freedom as experienced by people on individual basis -

And as a result of that the approach of multiple paths arrives at most complete happiness, most meaningful life and most inclusive liberty for everyone involved.