From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 23:55:20 MDT
"Olga Bourlin" wrtites
<<I was expressing my curiosity about why libertarian candidates seem to get
such bad publicity. Is it because the strange ones tend to get the bylines?
Oh, I know I'd never get mistaken for a libertarian. For the record,
however, I've never voted for a bona-fide "socialist" candidate and am not a
card-carrying socialist (but have identified myself as such, because I favor
some socialist ideas). >>
I happen to be a card carrying libertarian, but a club card is hardly
neccessary
to be in a certain political camp.
< My hot-button issues (short-list version) are: YES
to socialized medicine, affirmative action, stipends for one parent to rear
a child or children (either that or government-sponsored daycare), taxing
churches like other entertainment businesses; and NO to corporate welfare,
capital punishment, and school vouchers.>>
Yeah like I said.. a statist-socialist sort in spades.
You support govermentalization of my trade (medicine), and the rest of the
list
is even more odious. On the NO list we agree but for completely different
reasons.
(I support dueling as an alternative to capital punishment, complete
elimination of
the need for vouchers by dismantling all public schools, and don't believe
in
the taxes neccessary to sustain welfare, corporate or otherwise).
<<Statist-socialist sort? Is that something evil? >>
If you have to ask....
<(and you lost me
completely on the "envy disguised as principle" remark ... pardon?)>>
It's the old line that communism has transmuted in the modern
age into democratic socialism which is largely group envy masquerading
as virtue and high principle.
< [I] constantly chime in with comments? Now, Brian, you're being a
meanie.>>
Sorry, said "constantly" when I should have said "invariably".
<Okay, so let me ask you for your perception on a "big tent" approach to
transhumanism (for I suppose it would be too much to expect "extropianism"
to entertain a "come one, come all" invitation to, say, a "Cryonics Bash").
I've been on this list for a couple of years, and I still don't understand
why nanotechnology, longevity, cryonic preservation, singularity, and all
the other issues typically discussed on this list wouldn't (or couldn't)
appeal to all sorts of people besides libertarians. All those subjects
interest me, and ... well, you know ...
Olga>>
Big tent? I believe in freedom first. Technology is a tool
(albeit a pervasive one). If someone has not yet gotten
a good grip on sensible economic theory (TANSTAAFL)
and the idea of self-ownership (even if they do not neccessarily agree
with it) then they have work to do before I get involved. Socialism is
a plague meme IMHO, and a "socialist transhumanist" is virtually a
contradiction in terms. It could be made to work I suppose, but the
core of the transhuman ethos is, and hopefully will continue to be, one
rooted in liberty and the idea of freedom. Things you believe are
negotiable in exchange for some things. I don't believe they are
negotiable, one can steal them from me, take them by threat or force,
but one can't buy them, nor will I sell someone else's.
You would in a hot second for the greater good. Certain situations
I would work with you, preservation of life and limb of course. But
it's strictly a matter of neccessity, you don't believe in respect for
property as I conceive of it.
The reason why transhumanist ideas don't appeal to more people
of other political stripes is that often other political philosophies appeal
to moral principle or authority rather than reason, and instinctive
rejection of the truly novel (as a threat to one's brainwashing) is
usually part and parcel of the political ethos in question.
Put very simply,
I don't care to be in your tent. The airlock is *that* way. Have a nice
day.
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:28 MST