Congratulations for the reward - you deserve it! And you are right, few people are talking about three folding nowadays, but the time seems so ripe to begin the conversation. Systems are not working like they used to, the world is being pushed to change and usually in murky waters new ideas are born and people are frustrated enough with the group think to give them a chance to grow. Keep your good work going, Seth! It may seem that people who are interested are few and far apart but you know how it is with ideas - they need to be maintained and plumped up and suddenly everyone is onto them.
Toawrds the end of the article the assertion is made "Of course I have thoughts on such things, but my main interest is in the health of society, and society is harmed when it stops people from making their own choices." This view is on the libertarian end of the spectrum, which is probably where I come in on.
There is, nevertheless, some room for nuances here. Are we moving the needle in that direction consistently? In other words, Would it also be acceptable for parents to let their 15 year old drive, because the parents and the minor all agree that they can manage driving a vehicle without causing harm to others? (My dad was driving a delivery truck at age 14 back in the day).
Here is another example: What about a 17-year-old wanting to join the armed forces and the parents think it a good idea? A seven-year-old? And another possible example: Parents decide that their kids can have whiskey. (This is perfectly acceptable in some countries). I am asking Seth and other readers: Are my examples false equivalents, or do they carry any weight?
I also agree that if people want something badly enough they will go somewhere where they can get it. This was in evidence when my state (NY) recently mandated a staggering number of vaccines for school age children, and folks who opposed that went underground or moved elsewhere. But is that the final solution? If we can't get what we want, we move or hide? What would be another way to address these questions? Tennessee evidently outlawed all gender affirming care for minors. That is the most severe restriction that I can imagine. It could have made it illegal for the government to pay for such care , which would then have made the service exclusive, but not illegal. That position is at least somewhat consistent with a Libertarian philosophy.
I am pondering the question, which is basically "What do we do about the State of Affairs until we all get it right with the new enlightened conscioussness of Social Threefolding?"
Hey Nick - these are great questions. It's true that libertarians share the view that a healthy society requires human freedom, but I'm being more specific than that - a healthy society requires cultural freedom, that is: freedom of thought, conscience, expression; freedom over one's own body; freedom over one's own personal choices.
Freedom to take initiative in the economy - to have a good idea and to have the freedom to act on it - is also a kind of cultural freedom. The entrepreneur is working with inspiration and is a kind of cultural agent in the economy. That kind of freedom in the economy is healthy, but we also need much better economic rules - laws that facilitate ownership moving from the capable to the capable; labor laws that recognize labor is not a commodity and that all people involved in production are actually co-producing and therefore should also be profit-sharing. These are healthy laws for the economy. Freedom in the economy does not mean the freedom for some people to extract the lion's share of wealth for themselves and to force others to live in sub-human conditions. The freedom to harm your neighbor is a totally different kind of freedom and they shouldn't be confused. Such a "freedom" is clearly not healthy for society.
So, if we look at your questions through the lens of trying to leave people free in their personal choices, but still making sure to protect citizens from each other: Is it potentially harmful to others if children drive cars? Definitely. So there should be laws around it. Is it harmful to other people if parents let their kids drink whiskey or let them fight in the army? I don't think so. It definitely poses a risk to the child but I wouldn't make a law around it. I'd try to convince parents, and not force them.
Threefolding is not an enlightened "final state" - it's here, now. People want to be free in their thinking, in their beliefs. It lives in us. Will we work towards that, or against that? One step at a time.
I've mentioned similar inconsistencies in my recent post as well, with respect to the trans issue. I'm not sure whether the hypocrisy comes from aligning with a political group and just accepting its "party line", or because there are other factors involved that one may not be conscious of, besides the ostensible ones. For example, on the surface, conservatives seem to care about parental rights because they value the family, but they also abhor mixing categories and transgressing boundaries, which is why they are against trans surgeries. There might be a bit of compassion towards children who undergo these surgeries or hormone treatments, but there are plenty of examples of children getting hurt that they approve of, when the boundaries they care about are protected, and categories are not mixed.
Yeah, those are good points Iuval. I important to try to grasp the different value systems on the right and left, though I am also amazed at how often people just turn their back on their professed values because that's what their group is doing...
Thanks so much for your work. I have been part of a study group on social threefolding and we find your work very helpful. Bringing Steiner's ideas into present day issues makes makes his ideas so much more accessible.thanks
That's awesome, Colin, thanks for letting me know. It's great to know you're working with a study group on threefolding, and I'm very glad these articles are a help. All the best!
Congratulations for the reward - you deserve it! And you are right, few people are talking about three folding nowadays, but the time seems so ripe to begin the conversation. Systems are not working like they used to, the world is being pushed to change and usually in murky waters new ideas are born and people are frustrated enough with the group think to give them a chance to grow. Keep your good work going, Seth! It may seem that people who are interested are few and far apart but you know how it is with ideas - they need to be maintained and plumped up and suddenly everyone is onto them.
Thanks. Here is to hoping that the ripeness of the times and the ripeness of the ideas and the ripeness of the people carrying them all line up!
Toawrds the end of the article the assertion is made "Of course I have thoughts on such things, but my main interest is in the health of society, and society is harmed when it stops people from making their own choices." This view is on the libertarian end of the spectrum, which is probably where I come in on.
There is, nevertheless, some room for nuances here. Are we moving the needle in that direction consistently? In other words, Would it also be acceptable for parents to let their 15 year old drive, because the parents and the minor all agree that they can manage driving a vehicle without causing harm to others? (My dad was driving a delivery truck at age 14 back in the day).
Here is another example: What about a 17-year-old wanting to join the armed forces and the parents think it a good idea? A seven-year-old? And another possible example: Parents decide that their kids can have whiskey. (This is perfectly acceptable in some countries). I am asking Seth and other readers: Are my examples false equivalents, or do they carry any weight?
I also agree that if people want something badly enough they will go somewhere where they can get it. This was in evidence when my state (NY) recently mandated a staggering number of vaccines for school age children, and folks who opposed that went underground or moved elsewhere. But is that the final solution? If we can't get what we want, we move or hide? What would be another way to address these questions? Tennessee evidently outlawed all gender affirming care for minors. That is the most severe restriction that I can imagine. It could have made it illegal for the government to pay for such care , which would then have made the service exclusive, but not illegal. That position is at least somewhat consistent with a Libertarian philosophy.
I am pondering the question, which is basically "What do we do about the State of Affairs until we all get it right with the new enlightened conscioussness of Social Threefolding?"
Hey Nick - these are great questions. It's true that libertarians share the view that a healthy society requires human freedom, but I'm being more specific than that - a healthy society requires cultural freedom, that is: freedom of thought, conscience, expression; freedom over one's own body; freedom over one's own personal choices.
Freedom to take initiative in the economy - to have a good idea and to have the freedom to act on it - is also a kind of cultural freedom. The entrepreneur is working with inspiration and is a kind of cultural agent in the economy. That kind of freedom in the economy is healthy, but we also need much better economic rules - laws that facilitate ownership moving from the capable to the capable; labor laws that recognize labor is not a commodity and that all people involved in production are actually co-producing and therefore should also be profit-sharing. These are healthy laws for the economy. Freedom in the economy does not mean the freedom for some people to extract the lion's share of wealth for themselves and to force others to live in sub-human conditions. The freedom to harm your neighbor is a totally different kind of freedom and they shouldn't be confused. Such a "freedom" is clearly not healthy for society.
So, if we look at your questions through the lens of trying to leave people free in their personal choices, but still making sure to protect citizens from each other: Is it potentially harmful to others if children drive cars? Definitely. So there should be laws around it. Is it harmful to other people if parents let their kids drink whiskey or let them fight in the army? I don't think so. It definitely poses a risk to the child but I wouldn't make a law around it. I'd try to convince parents, and not force them.
Threefolding is not an enlightened "final state" - it's here, now. People want to be free in their thinking, in their beliefs. It lives in us. Will we work towards that, or against that? One step at a time.
I've mentioned similar inconsistencies in my recent post as well, with respect to the trans issue. I'm not sure whether the hypocrisy comes from aligning with a political group and just accepting its "party line", or because there are other factors involved that one may not be conscious of, besides the ostensible ones. For example, on the surface, conservatives seem to care about parental rights because they value the family, but they also abhor mixing categories and transgressing boundaries, which is why they are against trans surgeries. There might be a bit of compassion towards children who undergo these surgeries or hormone treatments, but there are plenty of examples of children getting hurt that they approve of, when the boundaries they care about are protected, and categories are not mixed.
Yeah, those are good points Iuval. I important to try to grasp the different value systems on the right and left, though I am also amazed at how often people just turn their back on their professed values because that's what their group is doing...
Thanks so much for your work. I have been part of a study group on social threefolding and we find your work very helpful. Bringing Steiner's ideas into present day issues makes makes his ideas so much more accessible.thanks
That's awesome, Colin, thanks for letting me know. It's great to know you're working with a study group on threefolding, and I'm very glad these articles are a help. All the best!
Congratulations!