From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Apr 29 2002 - 15:41:27 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>>(Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>):
>>
>>So, you think trade is the ultimate and only good way for
>>sentient beings to relate while being driven by rational
>>selfishness?
>>
>
> Clearly, yes. There are only three options: altruism, in which
> only the benefit to the recipient of the action is taken into
> account; force, in which only the will of the actor matters; and
> trade, which is voluntary exchange to the mutual benefit of both.
I don't agree these two exhaust the possibilites or at least I
would add the caveat that many things consider to be "free
trade" are neither free nor do they refrain from considerable
effective force.
I am not convinced that a system of buying and selling as we
have it today largely motivated and governed by financial profit
alone is the best way to organize a society of free beings or is
the penultimate that we should expect.
>
>
>>Do you also think that their understanding of what
>>really is in their self-interest will never include some or
>>perhaps all of which you now disparage as irrational because it
>>is "altruism"? If so, what is the convincing rational argument
>>that persuades you?
>>
>
> Quite a few rational actions /appear/ to be altruistic. For
> example, I happen to be one of those die-hard libertarians who
> nonetheless thinks that some forms of welfare are not necessarily
> evil, because they may benefit the providers in the form of less
> crime, stimulating risk and creativity, and other effects. I don't
> like the really stupid forms, and I don't appreciate being taxed
> for it, but if I were offered a free choice of private governments
> to subscribe to I might very well choose one that offered such
> services. Not because of some feeling of social obligation, but
> because I rationally believe such a system might benefit me in the
> long run.
>
Yes. And when the long run is indefinite lifespan with
abilities to overcome most ill effects including poor
programming and other problems, it becomes likely that caring
for even those who seem currently most seemingly hopeless or
unworthy has potential pay off. Not of us ourselves would enjoy
being terminated or left to the streets if we should fall ill or
into a disasterous mememtic trap or simply fall behind the
current burst of progress. Why then should we consider it
reasonable to treat others as we would not like to be treated by
either comission or omission? I think it is important when
considering the type of world or system we wish to live in that
we look at it from the possible "bottom" as well as from the
hoped for "top" or at least "comfortable". Good questions are
both how you would like to be treated in such circumstances and
how you believe you should be treated in such circumstances.
The questions need consideration not only in the context of what
is or was but in the fullest context of the abundance and nearly
limitless life we say we hope for and work towards.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:42 MST