From: John B (discwuzit@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Mar 20 2002 - 12:01:22 MST
Mr Lorrey wrote:
"The point is that each individual should be free to
determine their own path, no matter what that path may
be, so long as it doesn't harm others. We want all
paths to be available for all, not just for one.
-snip-
So long as it is left to the individual to choose
their path, they can choose to live in stasis,
progress, regress, etc."
An excellent philosophy, IMO. However, the bugs within
it are quite pointy of jaw. Who maintains these
freedoms? IE - if the Schmoe Clan decides their
freedom to ride their (insert vehicle/beast here) over
your garden, who help you fend 'em off? No one? Then
we're not talking freedom - we're talking a form of
violent anarchy. If there are social restrictions, do
they truely inhibit everyone? If there are technical
restrictions (publicly accessible nanobot reporters,
for instance), how hard is it to spoof them or
otherwise subvert them?
Unless there's some external force - a government, a
utterly fair clan of judges, massive social stigma
against it - just the search for freedom will (IMO)
become something much worse quite rapidly. It's a
little more stable than true anarchy, but not by much.
Mr Lorrey wrote:
"That is why its practical rather than pollyannish.
Practical optimism takes into account that while most
people try to be good most of the time, there are and
will always be exceptions. We just don't think that
everyone should be dunned all the time because of the
occasional bad acts of a few.
We think that the world should be structured in a way
that trusts people to be innocent until they do
something bad, to use technology safely until they, as
individuals, do not do so."
I agree, I'd prefer to live in a world where it's safe
to assume that the neighbor's breeder reactor is
utterly safe and the aforesaid neighbor has no
intention of nuking myself or others. However, finding
an active breeder reactor upstream or upwind would
worry me significantly due to the incredible toxicity
of its products and the relative ease with which
mistakes may be made.
To address your second paragraph, I don't believe the
great majority of people are intionally planning mass
murder, but I would like to be able to determine which
of my neighbors ARE intending it, if any, and be able
to react to that threat before it materializes.
Does this make sense to you?
Mr Lorrey wrote:
"However, IF an individual chooses to belong to such a
society, to believe in such a society, they are
consenting to the above described repression. If they
are trapped, unable to leave, that is certainly the
case with a large number of the women in the muslim
world, that is another case. However I find it rather
interesting that so many Afghan women are freely
choosing to continue to wear the burkha. Makes you
wonder who it is that is actually feeling repressed."
Or, more likely to my mind, who has been conditioned.
Learning isn't always a beneficial experience. It is
possible to 'teach' someone (better known as
'condition') to avoid certain thoughts and practices.
Mr Lorrey wrote:
"You may be free to deny service to others, but if so,
then those others are free to tell the world about it,
and if the rest of the world denies service to you as
a result, well, then, that is your problem, isn't it?"
Indeed. And this is one of the big sticking points
between public sector and private sector. However, and
please correct me if I'm wrong here - doesn't the
extropian community suggest going with private law?
And, as it's private law, wouldn't this give the
people involved the right, per your arguements, to
deny service (infringe the rights of?) others?
Thanks for your response...
-John Benner
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:02 MST