From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 17:05:11 MST
Noah wrote:
> My first thought regarding your idea is that one function of such a
> country, short of founding traditional politcal parties in existing
> countries, is to function as a lobby in many countries. A group that
> lobbied for, say, legalized stem cell research in western countries, or
> boosted funding for NASA and such.
I've been lobbying for legalised stem cell research in Oz. GMO and gene
therapies are other hot issues. There are many issues that a group of
educated and motivated individuals with a common set of values could
accelerate by being organised without opposing in any harmful way existing
western democracies. But this is a long way down the track. The hard part is
getting started I think. Intelligent individuals are frequently not joiners
or if they do join they join very focussed causes. They are usually capable
of functioning well even within the limits of the existing systems. And they
are, I think reticent, to buy into the baggage that comes with being part of
a group, where fellow group members say and do things that do not want to be
associated with.
>
> My second thought is that virtual nations exist in a manner today. The
> example that comes to mind is the Scientologists. They are a group with a
> strong bureacracy, taxation/membership dues, an internal legal system and
> international lobby power. Another example would be the Roman Catholic
> Church. In essence, any religion with an organized bureacracy is a
> virtual nation.
I am reminded of Mike Moore's April fools day joke about an extropian
church. Whilst I can see where you are coming from, neither the
scientiologists nor the catholic church have two of the principal components
I'd see as crucial. Something like a democratic structure or an intention to
move to a democratic structure at some time once the basics have been worked
out would differentiate this virtual country/democracy from the above
institutions. The other component I'd see as important is a commitment to
pan-critical rationalism. Faith and religion would be tolerated but as faith
and religion proceed from the basis of assumptions that cannot be shared or
explored universally they ultimately turn out to be anti-social and I'd
expect people would eventually grow out of them.
>
> I would certainly support an extropian virtual nation, assuming that it
> indeed grows through the bootstrapping you mentioned. My suggestion for
> an initial step is to create it as a political lobby in an existing nation
> like the US or UK. This would give a quick return on investment for
> members and would not require the sort of contractual binding that would
> probably turn people off in the beginning.
Unless rights and responsibilities whether these additional ones turned out
to be were placed in some form of contract/formal agreement I think they'd
be meaningless. Contracts do require a home juristiction (say the state of
california or something) and thereby become part of an existing countries
legal framework, however, contracts can also build in a requirement for
pre-judicial mitigation, which courts will usually honor. I expect the
sanctions for failing to honor ones contractul obligation to ones fellow
citizens might simply be expulsion from the virtual country or suspension.
But way before any of this can take place common values need to be
articulated along with a vision to draw people together. I think a first
point is a something like a declaration of transcendence - wrong name but
the drift is there. When the "founding fathers" got together to draft the
declaration and the constitution they were already delegates of extablished
states. Perhaps "founding fathers" need to be sourced from the extropian
movement, maybe from civil libertarians movements and a bunch of others that
can agree on similar values.
What kindred movements might currently exist that have like constituencies
already?
I am treating this just as an intellectual exercise but one that might be of
use at some point.
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > Hi Extropes,
> >
> > Not to minimise the differences between what people actually see as
> > desirable goals, I think the biggest challenge in realizing many peoples
> > desire to move to better futures, to be part of a better society, to
> > accelerate the singularity, or whatever you like, is the lack of a
practical
> > plan, let alone an optimal plan, for getting from here to there.
> >
> > As a group of polymathic types I wonder if you'd be interested in a sort
of
> > though experiment aimed at brainstorming the steps involved in founding
a
> > virtual country.
> >
> > We live in a world of sovereign countries. UN membership is exclusive to
> > sovereign countries. Individual persons have no corresponding
> > meta-organisation they can join, yet a virtual country comprised of
> > individual citizens who had specifically opted in, could, it seems to
me,
> > become a potent source for good whilst also benefiting it's citizens.
> >
> > We have a global financial system but we don't have a global society to
> > underpin it. Which is ironic because capitalism or even the security to
> > trade and the confidence to invest and build for the long term requires
the
> > sort of security that only a strong democracy can provide. But it seems
> > national democracies are currently being undermined. When politicians on
> > electoral cycles of three of four years struggle for votes in a world
where
> > voters are concerned by jobs and innovation is making jobs harder to
come
> > by. Multinational corps (to be successful) need to get into the business
of
> > regime shopping just as politicians to protect the interests of their
> > constituents need to make deals to create jobs. But national democracies
as
> > currently structured can pose substantive blocks to the emergence of an
> > international democracy. Its hard to set up Greek city states in 2002,
> > perhaps a virtual country is the way to make some new creative space.
> >
> > It is difficult to manage global systems that effect us all such as the
> > environment, or to give teeth to international human rights, let alone
> > transhuman ones. The US, imo, for all its flaws is probably the best
working
> > democracy in the world at present - its constitution and bill of rights
seem
> > to set the standard for the protection of the rights of the individual -
but
> > it limits these rights to its own citizens. If you don't happen to be a
US
> > citizen you don't get to vote for Bush or Gore etc, but you do get to
wear a
> > portion of the consequences.
> >
> > I've heard it argued that democracies are usually pretty good at voting
> > themselves money, and perhaps this is a key part of what makes them
stable,
> > but if this has been true in the past, it is showing signs of being less
> > true in the future. Money in modern democracies leaks. People cling to
the
> > right to a job like galley slaves cling to their rights to an oar, when,
if
> > AI come along, or even if it doesn't, it is going to make almost all
jobs
> > redundant (ala Han's Moravec's Robot from memory), so the smart thing to
be
> > defending is not ones job but ones vote.
> >
> > If you are a wealthy US citizen, and the same applies to other western
> > countries, you can avoid paying substantial amounts of tax with the
> > assistance of good tax advice. And this is not necessarily an immoral
> > action. A person that legally avoid paying say US$1m in taxes may still
> > choose to redirect that same amount of money to he/she see as truly
> > benefiting the public good either in or outside their native country.
> >
> > Within all existing countries there are constitutions, forms of
government,
> > rights and responsibilities accepted by citizens. Its hard to find
physical
> > space to found new countries as the land is already possessed but why
should
> > a country, be bounded by land? At some point with a land purchase
perhaps
> > the virtual country could become a sovereign country, setting up laws
less
> > paternalistic. Cryonics for instance might be allowed as a matter of
> > routine. A stream lines version of the FDA could enable individuals to
> > assume greater share of responsibility for making informed choices and
> > trying experimental medicines in the context of absolute rather than
> > relative medical risk etc. And eventually a virtual country whose
citizens
> > leveraged the skills and capabilities of each other in preference in
their
> > contracts and trade would become wealthy. If they paid tax to a virtual
> > government (duly elected) that government could eventually buy land.
Once
> > the virtual country was seeded and had citizens. Those citizens could
also
> > perhaps set up more traditional political parties in existing countries.
> >
> > Different existing countries have different feelings about dual
citizenship,
> > I understand the US requires one to revoke other citizenships, however,
this
> > need not be a show stopper, contract law alone may be enough to build a
> > layer of optional citizenry atop one's national obligations. Extropian
or
> > extropian like lawyers, tax experts, investment advisors, researchers
could
> > probably outcompete most comers on merit in a straight contest. Perhaps
they
> > may not be so good at organisation and implementation - I'm still
wondering
> > about that.
> >
> > The founding would need to be a bootstrap operation. Countries are not
born
> > instantaneously in their full complexity. Perhaps it might kick off by
> > putting together a set of core values or tenets (perhaps like the
extropian
> > prinicples perhaps not), a sort of "declaration of transcendence" might
be
> > structured by contemporary Jefferson's, Adamses and Franklins.
> >
> > An important basic question to ask and answer would be who would be
allowed
> > to join (those who agree to adhere to the tenets), would there be any
poll
> > tax to do any administrating. And the core question one should ask and
have
> > answered - what's in it for me why should I join?
> >
> > It would seem that crucial is the recognition that rights and
> > responsibilities are intimately coupled, the country should not assert
> > rights for its citizens that it cannot underwrite with commensurate
> > responsibilities accepted by its citizens. This is a key difference I
think
> > between many existing countries founded on notions that human rights can
> > exist without human responsibility existing to underwrite them. i.e.. No
god
> > given rights unless god becomes a citizen and as a consequence we can be
> > sure we have the wherewithal not just the will to underwrite them.
> >
> > Anyway, that's enough of a gas baggy start, my questions are what would
be
> > the best way, the key engineering principles if you like of founding a
> > virtual country, what would be the key blocks that people see, does
anyone
> > see merit in the idea of working out in crude blueprint form how to set
such
> > up?
> >
> > PS: Sorry about the verbosity, I often write long stuff and don't post
it,
> > cause I haven't the time to clean it up, sometimes I think good content
> > doesn't get sent because I over self censor, maybe my inhibitions are
well
> > founded - I'll accommodate feedback on this point as well.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:53 MST