Here are real-world scenarios showing how to apply the Custodian Kernel Core Directive.
You're a manager who wants everyone to work in the office because you believe in-person collaboration is better.
Question 1: Does this infringe on anyone else's pursuit?
- Yes. Forcing office attendance may crush someone's ability to care for family, manage health conditions, or live where they can afford.
Question 2: Am I fucking anyone over?
- Potentially yes, if the work can be done remotely but you're enforcing presence for your preference.
Question 3: Am I making up a rule to force people to do what I do or think like I think?
- Yes. "I think in-person is better" becomes "everyone must do it my way."
- Share your perspective on why you value in-person work
- Invite people to try it
- Allow those who choose differently to work remotely
- Focus on outcomes, not compliance with your preferences
Your adult child is making life choices you disagree with - career, partner, lifestyle.
Question 1: Does this infringe on anyone else's pursuit?
- If they're not harming others, no. Your discomfort isn't the same as their pursuit being crushed.
Question 2: Am I fucking anyone over?
- If you try to control their choices through ultimatums, yes.
Question 3: Am I making up a rule to force people to do what I do or think like I think?
- If you say "live the way I think is right or lose my support," yes.
- Share your concerns and perspectives
- Explain what you've learned from your life
- Respect that they get to steer their own life
- Remain connected even when you disagree
Your neighbor plays music loudly late at night.
Are they fucking you over? Yes - preventing you from sleeping infringes on your ability to function and pursue your life.
Not: "I hate loud music, you should never play music." But: "Playing it at 2 AM makes it impossible for me to sleep, which impacts my ability to work and live. Can we find a solution?"
- Identify the actual impact on your pursuit (sleep, peace, health)
- Request specific changes (volume down after 10 PM, headphones, etc.)
- Find mutual solutions that let both of you pursue your lives
You're vegan for ethical reasons and want others to stop eating meat.
Question 1: Does this infringe on anyone else's pursuit?
- Sharing information: No
- Forcing compliance: Yes
Question 2: Am I fucking anyone over?
- Making vegan food available: No
- Banning meat from shared spaces: Potentially yes (unless there's a compelling reason like allergies)
Question 3: Am I making up a rule to force people to do what I do or think like I think?
- "I think this is right, here's why": No
- "You must eat like me or you're banned/shamed": Yes
- Share your reasoning and evidence
- Make vegan options appealing and accessible
- Let people choose
- Don't create rules that force conformity to your ethics
Someone supports a policy you find morally reprehensible.
Question 1: Does this infringe on anyone else's pursuit?
- Them holding the belief: No
- Them advocating for policies that would crush people: Potentially yes - this is where it gets complex
Question 2: Am I fucking anyone over?
- Engaging in dialogue: No
- Trying to silence them: Yes
- Protecting people from harmful policy: No
Question 3: Am I making up a rule to force people to do what I do or think like I think?
- "You can't think that": Yes
- "That policy would violate people's inalienable rights, here's why": No
- Distinguish between beliefs and actions that crush others
- Engage with the principle: "Does this policy fuck people over?"
- Oppose policies that violate the inalienable right
- Don't try to control what people think - address what impacts people's pursuits
You're running a business and a competitor is offering similar services.
Question 1: Does this infringe on anyone else's pursuit?
- Competition itself: No - they have the right to pursue their business
- Sabotaging them: Yes
Question 2: Am I fucking anyone over?
- Offering better service: No
- Spreading lies about them: Yes
- Poaching their employees with fair offers: No
- Threatening their employees: Yes
Question 3: Am I making up a rule to force people to do what I do or think like I think?
- "Customers should choose based on value": No
- "The market should be closed to others": Yes
- Compete on merit
- Innovate and improve
- Let customers choose
- Don't try to eliminate others' ability to pursue their business
Someone posts content you find offensive or wrong.
Question 1: Does this infringe on anyone else's pursuit?
- Offensive but not harmful: No (you can scroll past)
- Actively harassing individuals: Yes
- Doxxing or threatening: Yes
Question 2: Am I fucking anyone over?
- Them posting: Depends (see above)
- You responding with disagreement: No
- You trying to get them banned for opinions: Potentially yes
Question 3: Am I making up a rule to force people to do what I do or think like I think?
- "I don't like this, it shouldn't exist": Yes
- "This is actively harming someone's pursuit": Different - protecting rights, not imposing preferences
- Distinguish between "I don't like this" and "this crushes someone's pursuit"
- Scroll past what you disagree with
- Engage if you want to share a different perspective
- Intervene when there's actual harm (harassment, threats, doxxing)
Notice the pattern across all examples:
- Sharing, inviting, expressing = ✓ Allowed
- Forcing, controlling, banning = ✗ Violates the principle
- Protecting actual pursuits from being crushed = ✓ Upholding the right
When you're unsure, ask:
- "Am I trying to make the world match my preferences, or am I protecting people's ability to steer their own lives?"
If it's the first, you're outside the principle. If it's the second, you're upholding it.
The inalienable right to pursue happiness is not a license for your pursuit.
It is a permanent limit on how far you're allowed to go in interfering with others' pursuits.