Re: Transparency
From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Fri Mar 24 2000 - 21:55:47 MST
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:28:36 -0500
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>Subject: Re: Transparency (Was Re: FreeNet downside)
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>
A transparent world only seems like a constraining state of affairs if every human action is either mandatory or forbidden; however, in current human society, there exists a wide range of free choices which are neither. Of course, people are free to disapprove of the free choices of others, and most likely will, if they differ from their own, but as long as this disapproval is toothless, i.e. carries no legal penalty, it only possesses the power that its recipient gives it. People can, and do, routinely choose not to care what others with whom they differ on the wisdom or morality of their choices care about what choices they make. Examples of these are the so-called victimless crime class, which in my opinion should carry no penalties, as they are consensual activities; abortion, gambling, drug use, homosexuality and euthanasia. No victimless activity should be criminal. Certain qualifications apply, however (and I would like to have additions or modifications to or!
subtractions from these qualifications made and justified). Unemancipated minors, who are not able to give responsible and informed consent, should not be seduced by or provided drugs by adults, nor should they be allowed to gamble. Euthanasia should be restricted to those with a terminal illness and/or suffering massive and intractable pain; in other words, the depressed or despondent need not apply - they can always commit suicide if they wish to die badly enough. People who are addicted to those drugs which can physically addict have lost their freedom to decide whether or not to continue to use, and should be detoxed before being supplied with more of them, so that they can freely decide whether they wish to continue to use. Otherwise, moral suasion should be the only option open to those who dislike such practices, and of course, practitioners are as free to reject it as those who dislike such practices are free not to practice them themselves. Freedoms should only !
be constrained in the cases where their practice abridges the freedoms of others, and where the inevitable conflicts between freedoms occur, they should be resolved by equal and proportional compromise. Crimes then fall into two interrelated classes; crimes against specific others and classes of others (theft, rape, assault, murder, fraud, etc.), and crimes against the quality of life provided by our common home (pollution, species destruction, deforestation, etc.). In such a free society, with massive individual wiggle room for actions neither criminal (forbidden) nor mandatory (such as paying one's freely incurred debts or obtaining a license before driving, for example), transparency does not seem too much of a threat to freedom, for one could still do all the things one would want to do, and choose to accept or reject the disapproval of others concerning their one's choices, as people routinely do now. The only possible area of friction concerns the continued prohibitio!
n of some victimless crimes; once that area is reformed, there should really be no problem. Regardless, privacy should not be a cloak for criminality.
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:37 MST