From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 22:56:03 MDT
spike66 wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> spike66 wrote:
>>
>>> As before, I presupposed you would
>>> compensate away much of the government's power as
>>> transparency increased. This is a critical point.
>>> No government can be trusted with the power that
>>> transparency would provide.
>>
>>
>> How would you "compensate away the power" and how would you keep other
>> dangerous concentrations of power from arising and abusing the system?
>
>
> We vote it away, Samantha. Many of our laws are guard-rail
> type laws: they are in place to help prevent the commission
> of a crime. Drug laws, instance. The main reason we have
> them is to prevent dopers from stealing to buy dope. So
> if you can prevent theft by other means, there is no longer
> a compelling reason to have anti-drug laws.
>
As I am sure you know, our drug laws have almost nothing to do
with this and will not be defeated so easily. We have the Feds
denying the ability of states to make their own decisions about
any drugs. We have a massive re-education problem about the
entire subject. The folks at NORML can tell you how easy it
isn't to get the people mobilized to vote against these laws and
how seldom that turns out to be enough to change them.
And this is just one tiny part of the interlocked monolith of
regulation and control. How will you educate and mobilize
enough people (a majority or majority of their representatives)
to stop most of it?
> Gene mentioned the problem of carrying a lot of cash and
> having it confiscated as drug money. If we had no drug laws,
> drug money would be just as legitimately owned as any other
> variety.
>
Actually it is none of the governments business to assume that
someone carrying a lot of cash is up to no good. I guess they
are happier if folks are carrying more debt than they can repay
in the next 10 years instead.
> Another example is speed laws. We don't need them. We
> only need laws against driving unsafely. Depending on the
> circs, it might be perfectly safe to haul.
>
I would rather have the ability to go anywhere I want anytime
without having to drive myself at all but I take your point.
>>>> Technology is an asymmetrical enabler, since favouring centralism. Why
>>>> giving up privacy, which is irreversible, in face of statistically
>>>> insignificant threats? The mind boggles.
>>>
>
> I like to think of this system as providing statistically
> significant opportunities.
>
> Consider for example, a kind of mini-borg that could
> develop. Unlike the Star Trek variety, this one would
> be totally voluntary. You will not be assimilated
> unless you want to, resistance is welcome.
>
And what would be their relationship to the remainder of the
world and its resources?
> I got thinking about this one day after I had visited
> the hardware store to get some materials to repair my
> sprinkler system. I passed by a broken sprinkler in
> front of a public building that was spewing water. I
> had half a mind to just stop and fix it. Of course I
> would have been sued. But if we had some means of forming
> a huge interconnected metaman that pooled its talents,
> and just dealt with problems as it witnessed them,
> the improvement in efficiency would be difficult to
> imagine.
Sure. But what happens when you disagree with your Borg
collective or your collective disagrees with another one?
We could have a lot of efficiency also if we werent' all so busy
attempting to to maximize the amount of green we receive that we
often literally sell-out what we believe would be our best work
and best contribution. We sell our lives to "make a living" and
then wonder why we need drugs to get through the day dependably.
Imagine what riches have been squandered away. Imagine what
riches of new ideas and technologies are still born because
their are too many fences and the fences are too high across the
in intellectual commons of humankind. Sometimes I think the
greatest danger to Singularity is not war or terrorism but is
being nickled and dimed to death at every increasing speed,
scope and efficiency.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:39 MST