>From: hal@finney.org
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: Human ID implant to be unveiled soon
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:19:27 -0700
>
>Randy Smith writes:
> > You see, I see this country (USA) as our property; it's our asset. We
>all
> > derive our living from it. The benefits from our work here accrue to us
>(in
> > large part).
>
>I think you need to add much more clarification to this concept.
OK, then...
>What does
>it mean that the USA is our property? What parts of the USA? The land?
>Are
>you saying that my land belongs collectivelly to the people of the US? Or
>do you just mean the businesses?
>My company is owned by everyone else?
Perhaps you are familiar with a certain business model:
A group of people buy a piece of property. They own it *jointly*.
They make improvements. They build facilities. It's a good location. They
prosper!
Each one is allocated a certain area, and there is also a common area. Each
sets up shop in his area, and they each obtain a living thusly. If there is
sufficient leftover common area, they may allow outsiders to become
partners. Newcomers must "buy in", or perhaps they offer other inducments to
partnership; perhaps they will bring in additional business. The partners
may vote on allowing newcomers. Some partners may argue for, or against,
etc.
In any event, the current partners *decide* whether any newcomers are
allowed in.
It is a (not necessarily equal) partnership.
>
>Then you suggest that if someone comes here and works, they're stealing
>my property? What exactly are they stealing? Suppose some guy stands on
>the other side of the border and makes a basket, and I buy it from him.
>He is still stealing? I don't see how it can become stealing simply if
>he steps over the border before making his basket.
>
Back to the aforementioned business model:
Suppose some Joe sneaks onto the property, and he sets up shop. He does
business. He makes money. Maybe he gives it to his wife, who knows.
But he hasn't obtained permission; he is deriving benefits from the
partnership, but he hasn't obtained *permission*. He is, in the commonly
accepted parlance, a *thief*.
>Even if you could come up with a principled reason to oppose immigration
>(were your own immigrant ancestors stealing, BTW?),
Different legal system. Why stop there? Go all the way back to monkeymen...
I prefer to work towards a better future.
>would it still follow
>that implanted IDs are a good idea? Wouldn't you have to consider the
>costs and disadvantages of that technology before jumping in and saying
>that it is good?
Certainly it should be evaluated. Let's do so.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:57 MDT