From: mark@unicorn.com
Date: Fri Dec 11 1998 - 10:28:32 MST
Samael [Samael@dial.pipex.com] wrote:
>Not entirely full. There appear to be a few non-anarchists about the place.
I realise you use a different version of the English language to the rest
of us, but where I come from "full of" means "there are plenty of", not
that the entire list is anarchists.
>ie - if you want to pay for defence against enemy bombers, but your
>neighbour doesn't, how do we defend one of you and not the otehr - and if
> we
>can't, do we just let your neighbour get away with something for nothing.
1. Why would anyone want to bomb me if I haven't done anything to them?
2. I don't care about defence against enemy bombers, I care about defence
against enemy bombs. As long as I can destroy or evade any bombs that
might have hit near enough to cause damage to me, then that's all
that matters. If they land on my neighbour, tough luck. If they would
have landed on my neighbour if I hadn't destroyed them, well, that's
good luck for him or her; it's irrelevant to me.
3. Anyone who tries to bomb Transhuman Mark will be hit with massive
retaliation. Anyone who looks like they're going to bomb me will be
pre-emptively nuked. Defence is easy in an era of cheap mass-destruction
weapons.
Similarly for your fire example; I don't care whether my neighbour's house
burns down as long as mine doesn't. If fire from his house is threatening
mine, I'll do something about it; if that helps him, I don't care.
You're trying to discuss a future transhuman society as though it's just
a modern socialist state with a few more bells and whistles; it will be
nothing of the kind.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:57 MST