From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri May 24 2002 - 13:32:43 MDT
On Friday, May 24, 2002, at 09:27 am, Dickey, Michael F wrote:
> From: Harvey Newstrom [mailto:mail@HarveyNewstrom.com]
>
>> condemn
>> those who seek to defend extropy against luddism for being
>> 'anti-extropian' by doing so.
>
> "Assassinating people is not self-defense. Terrorism is not
> self-defense. Killing infants is not self-defense. Racism is not
> self-defense. Hatred is not self-defense."
>
> I really do not think Mike Lorrey was advocating Assassination in the
> original thread, as I mentioned shortly after he posted that. It seemed
> much more reasonable to interpret his statements as justification for
> self
> defense, which I too believe is extropic.
Mike has indeed argued that assassinating Luddites is "self-defense".
He correctly points out that Luddite views can spread, can gain power,
can slowdown technological advancement, and can result in future deaths
because technology to save people isn't invented fast enough. He
interprets this as direct violence the Luddites are committing against
humanity. He argues that killing one Luddite is better than letting
them spread their views to kill millions of innocent people.
My objection is that they are not committing direct violence. They are
merely propagating their viewpoints. Even if they are wrong and the
viewpoints lead to suffering, we can't condemn people to death merely
for incorrect thinking.
> Taking a cursory
> look at history reveals horrendous non-democratic corrupt despotic
> governments murdering 10's of millions of people. Many of these
> murderous
> regime's may have been stopped by an assassination or two. Are we just
> as
> evil as that horrific dictator?
You are talking about assassinating people after they have done evil. I
was objecting to assassinating people before they did anything wrong.
You are talking about condemning people based on what they do. I was
objecting to condemning people based on what they believe. You are
talking about stopping the spread of violence. I was objecting to
stopping the spread of ideas. My objections to Mike's assassination
plans do not imply the viewpoints you ascribe to me.
> "I thought history showed that coercive murderous governments that
> suppressed dissenting opinions with violence lost out to peace-loving
> democratic self-rule by the people. Besides, no one is arguing for
> pacifism."
>
> Perhaps they do, in the long run. But in the meantime millions of
> people
> are killed, poets, philosophers, artists, scientists... peasant
> farmers...
> Where is the value in that?
I do not support allowing violence to go unchecked, because there is no
value in that. It oppose the initiation of violence where no previous
crimes have been committed or merely to suppress an idea we oppose.
> "You are replacing the evil coercive Luddites with
> our coercive terrorist dictatorship that kills anybody who disagrees
> with us. How does this promote extropy or prevent entropy. You end up
> creating the very thing you fear most."
>
> Seems you are perpetuating a fallacy of extremes here, one need not be a
> coercive terrorist dictatorship OR an absolute pacifist. It is a false
> dichotomy, one could choose a middle ground.
No. You believe that I am arguing against the extreme so that I can
then argue against the middle ground that might lead to the extreme.
This is not my plan. I am only arguing against this extreme position
which I believe some people really support. I am not opposing the many
middle ground possibilities that do not resort to the extremism I reject.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:20 MST