From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Wed Jun 20 2001 - 12:39:57 MDT
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Blackford <rblackford@hotmail.com>
To: extropians@extropy.org <extropians@extropy.org>
Date: 20 June 2001 11:40
Subject: Re: CLANG ... The sound of culture clash (was RE: The meaning
of...)
>Dwayne quoted...
>
>
>But yes, you're right, there
>> > is a greater tendency for Europeans to be anti-free market.
>>
>
>then added...
>
>
>>Same with Australians. <snip> I'd say australians would be more in line
>>with
>>europeans than americans. I think. >>
Russell said
>As the newest Aussie here, AFAIK, I have to agree that there's a stronger
>tendency for us to accept collectivist solutions than is the case with the
>US.
I don't think this is true actually. In my experience America is a very
highly regulated society with a truly manic attitude towards the enforcement
of laws that you would not find in Europe or (I suspect) Australia. There is
also the well known tendency towards puritanism in the US which leads to
treatment of groups such as eg smokers that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere
in Europe.
Russell said further
Nor am I convinced that this is entirely a bad thing.
>
>The point isn't to insist on economic freedom for business corporations, or
>to avoid collectivist answers to every problem of social coordination, at
>all costs. Like most on this list, I have libertarian tendencies, but the
>really important point is to challenge the legitimacy of governmental
>actions that suppress individual choices *for the sake of suppressing those
>choices*, ie which attempt to use law to impose a particular conception of
>the "good life" on everyone. If this kind of reasoning could be declared
>illegitimate once and for all, that would expand the protection of our
>freedoms enormously; it would give us all the freedom we need to pursue a
>transhumanist agenda. Governments might still make a lot of bad decisions,
>but a huge class of such decisions would be ruled out in advance as morally
>illegitimate.
>
>FWIW, a lot of collectivist actions at which I might look at askance if I
>saw them in isolation strike me as more reasonable in the context of a
>mercantilist economic system dominated by state-sanctioned trading and
>financial entities with special legal privileges. This way of conducting
>trade, commerce and finance doubtless has pragmatic economic advantages,
but
>it could not be justified within a pure libertarian system such as Nozick's
>in _Anarchy, State and Utopia_. If we're going to continue with a
>mercantilist economic system, I have no in-principle concerns about
>softening it with labour relations and trade practices laws aimed at giving
>a "fair go". As long as we rule out laws for the suppression of beliefs,
>thoughts, expression, inquiry, life style choices, etc, enacted for the
sake
>of such suppression, a policy mix with some collectivist elements may be
>acceptable, or even desirable, seen against a backdrop where no one has any
>serious prospect of introducing a pure libertarian system with no corporate
>privileges.
Indeed. I can't see why people are not more aware of the problems posed by
entities like private corporations. An example is the extraordinarily
intrusive regulation of private life that you find in "private communities"
in the US which extends to such matters as what colour you paint your front
door.
Steve D
>==================
>Russell Blackford
>rblackford@hotmail.com
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:13 MST