[From Rick Marken (940831.1450)]
Bill Powers (940831.0945 MDT) to Rick Marken (940830.1420) --
You described what your beliefs and principles ARE, but you didn't say
how they relate to each other -- in terms of my levels: which are system
concepts, which are principles, which are programs, etc.. You didn't say
how elements of your statement fit a hierarchical structure ( or not).
But that's the HARD part! It's so much more fun just carrying on about all
those very important controlled variables of mine 
OK. Let's give it a try. I'll cut pieces out of my (940830.1420) post and try
to say what kinds of perceptions they are and how they might relate to each
other.
I believe that all people should be able to be in control of what matters to
themselves while interfering or conflicting with each other as little as
possible.
I suppose this is a principle perception (the principle of "harmony" in
human interactions?). The relationships between people (interfering,
conflicting, acing in concert, acting independently) are, of course,
relationship perceptions. Different relationships might be what you might
want to see in order to perceive other principles operating. For example,
seeing lots of interpersonal conflict might be the kind of relationship that
should exist in order to perceive the principle of "free enterprise" or
"survival of the fittest" in human relations.
I believe that, in many cases, in order to achieve this result, people will
have to be _willing_ (not be forced; be willing) to give up a little of
their own control.
Another principle, it seems to me. I say it's a means to achieve a
principle but then I don't suggest doing anything. I think I am describing
another principle that I like to see in relationships between people --
a principle that might be described as "avoid the use of coercion".
I see my vision of society as the essence of what I think of as
"liberalism";
Easy; category perception. But it seems to be a category of principles
including things like "do unto others", "live in harmony with others", "don't
coerce others", "people should be in control".
it is based on the assumption that each individual has the ability to see
that voluntarily giving up some control _in some circumstances_ can
actually lead to better control for oneself and others;
Could be a program perception; by perceiving oneself following this program
(which might be called "tit for tat" or "you scratch my back and I'll scratch
yours" and implemented as "if we all give up X, we all reap Y else we all
reap Zero") one can contribute to implementing the principle of living in
harmony (note: I understand that "living in harmony" is just one possible
level of a principle and that it is the level that I happen to prefer; others
may -- and apparently do -- prefer other levels, like "survival of the
fittest"; it's just a perception and anyone can control it at any level they
like).
I do not associate "liberalism" with "helping" others
More category perception.
In looking this over, I can see that my political beliefs could be
considered a potpouri including socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and
libertarianism.
And still more.
If my analysis is even close to being reasonable, the only surprise (from an
HPCT perspective) is the existence of what seems to be a category of
principles. As I recall, the category level in HPCT currently lurks below
principles so something is weird -- and I'm willing to bet that it's me;-)
Best
Rick