From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 05 2002 - 14:13:05 MST
Dave Sill [mailto:extropians@dave.sill.org] wrote:
>
> Whenever you have more than one principle, you *will* encounter
> situations where choices have to be made. Do you want to have absolute
> liberty? Well, you might have to cut back on progress.
Right, but I don't think it's Extropian to completely ignore any of
the Principles.
### I think I am not ignoreing anything important. See below.
------
> As it is, I am amazed that so many Extropians seem uncomfortable with the
> (relatively) small imposition that the taxes used for research are, but
> somehow nobody addresses the brutal, arrogant attack on liberty that goes
on
> every day on almost all roads - the highway speed limits,
I don't object to funding research, I object to people being forced to
fund research.
### As I said in another post, I am all for allowing everybody to opt out of
paying taxes. For example, those unwilling to pay for the army should be
allowed to keep their cash. Of course, the local territorial protection
service may then choose to inform all parties (e.g. Chinese organ traders,
the Taliban, etc) that the person in question is no longer under the army
protection. If they decide to harvest you, and you just happen to have
insufficient firepower, well, it's deplorable, but as they say, it's no skin
off my nose.
Same applies to results of scientific research - opt out by switching to
herbal medicines to treat your pneumonia, which in contrast to the
antibiotics used now, were developed with private funds.
------
> My goal is not absolute liberty, regardless of the collateral damage
> (=innocent lives lost).
So you're willing to save people's lives, whether they want to be
saved or not? Do you also support seat belt laws?
### Here is the crux of the matter - I fully agree with you that saving
anybody against his/her will is wrong. The first principle is "An innocent
life WISH may not be thwarted" - it's not the life, it's the wish that
counts. That's why I oppose seat belt laws. But then, on the other hand, the
enforcers might be paid by insurers to investigate and report drivers who do
not use seat belts. Their insurance premiums may be adjusted to reflect the
risk they are.
Almost all of us wish to survive, especially here on the ExI list. Certain
services which greatly enhance our chances of survival (territorial military
protection, basic research, provision of certain types of branding
information) can for technical reasons only to a limited extent be supplied
by the free market. A state, or something similar is needed to provide them,
at least until radically new methods of exchanging information allow other
solutions. I do believe the free market is the fairest way of exchanging
goods and services between humans. But, when I have to choose between
absolute adherence to the free market ideal vs. survival wishes of innocent
people, I choose the latter.
As long as everybody can opt out, and die by their own decision, my
conscience is clear.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:16 MST