It's kind of you to ask tricky questions.

Statements 11 and 17 don't conflict because they are about different things:  11 says that you have to want in order to design, and 17 says it's not your design if you are asking permission.

Statement 17's use of the word "design" is recommended by its desired consequences rather than reliance on common sense.

Here are two things we get out of our statement:

1.  When a person asks permission to make up their own desires and other articulations, they condition their desires and articulations according to their perception of the desires of those from whom they ask permission.  When you want a new social system, asking permission forces your designs to solve the problems of the ways we have of meeting needs, instead of calling those ways a problem.

2.  Instead of insisting that anyone oppose or support Camp Quixote in any way that we would, we propose in statement 17 that people articulate their own ideas without asking for permission, which can result in sentences and conversations that have never happened before.  In the presence of others' listening and self-made articulations, here there is potential to inform and create in a way that is indispensable to living in a society that is stipulated, coordinated, and desired by its living population.

Extra/Hidden:  It may be that no one has to do anything in relation to Camp Quixote to do what we propose.  Camp Quixote does have among its attractions that it has an infrastructure that can be learned from and affected.

In statement 9's usage of "legitimacy," the legitimacy of a desire (ex: to murder) is not dependent on the social desirability of its consequences.  A desire's legitimacy is instead framed in terms of whether the desirer is self-articulating rather than signaling that they are well-adjusted citizens.  Under the terms of statement 9, to say that someone legitimately desires is not to say that you want them to have their way.  Instead it is to say that you believe that it was their invented solution to a problem that they themselves framed.

We won't debate whether any desire to murder would be legitimate under the terms of statement 9.  The Olympia Perturbers' Guild refuses all debate in order to avoid the consequences of public intellectual competition, which we call degrading to audiences, losers, and winners.  We will also avoid the distraction of articulating "murder" at this time, betting that we and you will at least agree that it is bad and it involves killing.

In order to protect future uses of our statements about Camp Quixote and its detractors, we must try to prevent the otherwise inevitable accusations about our discussion of "legitimate desires" and "murder" in the same piece of writing.  Unfortunately, we feel compelled to say:

We oppose murder just the same as we oppose the problem-framing and problem-solving techniques of the current society-at-large.  

The most predictable uses of any consideration of whether we would say that murder could be a "legitimate desire" under statement 9 are:

 * Pretext for insult/dismissal.

 * An academic distraction from thinking about the consequences of murder.

 * An academic or political distraction from developing understandings of, and uses for, Camp Quixote and its detractors.

Thanks for your attention and your prompt.

According to this website, I am responding to something that you will write in seven hours and 11 minutes.

Whether to involve the unwilling is up to the ethics of the designer.  It would only be desirable when a designer wants anyone, specified or not, to participate unwillingly.  An implication of this is that a design would have to be protected by violence.  If people are affected in a way that a designer doesn't desire, the designer may want to do something to prevent justifications for anyone to call themselves or anyone else a victim.  If that is impossible, my hope is that it is only a reputation that risks serious injury.

This is a good time to point out that designing can be a social activity.

Statement 17 is recommending that you don't ask the protectors and agents of a society in which things like food and health have to be earned if it's okay for you to imagine a society that you would want to live in.  Permission will only be granted if your ideas can be bought and used for purposes decided on by those who grant permission.  If you want to fix the current society, ask for permission.  If you want to contradict the current society, permission will interfere with your design.

chad360, these ideas are fun, not worrisome!  One of our roles is to provide language that, instead of merely taking stances that to be opposed or agreed with, can be mined for uses.  Rather than ask that anyone find them consistent or inconsistent, these statements ask to be useful.  You use them when you get/make something out of them that is more than the verbatim text.  We want you making sentences of your own that you wouldn't have said otherwise.  Having made new language, you will make new decisions.  It goes without saying that you will act according to your own current ethics.  People had better differ if they want relationships that generate new thoughts.  The Olympia Perturbers' Guild recommends that people differ in self-made and group-participatory articulations rather than by degree of loyalty to the common sense of the current society.