From: Terry Donaghe (tdonaghe@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Dec 13 1998 - 17:43:34 MST
---"Joe E. Dees" <jdees0@students.uwf.edu> wrote:
>
> Date sent: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:25:02 -0500
> From: Michael Lorrey <mike@lorrey.com>
> Organization: Mikeysoft
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
> Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
>
> > Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, you support the existence of government. But do you support
> > > the
> > > existence of a coercive (violence, theft toward the individual)
> > > government? If so, how do you support those views in terms of
> > > Extropianism. If not, please explain how a non-coercive
government
> > > could exist...
> > >
> > > An entirely non-coercive government cannot exist; such an absolute
> > > is an abstract, unreifiable construct, resembling a "straw
saint" (an
> > > "if we can't have perfection, let's not have anything" kind of
> > > argument). But since there are necessary, essential and
> > > indispensable services which only some form of government can
> > > provide, it is useful for us to keep total non-coercion before
us as an
> > > asymptotically approachable goal, towards which we strive by
> > > working to make the government we must have as non-coercive as
> > > possible, while still able to perform its necessary, essential and
> > > indispensable functions for us. If this violates some obscure
tenet of
> > > Extropian dogma, then there's something wrong with Extropianism at
> > > that point, for the very concept of dogma is itself a coercive,
> > > intellectual freedom-stealing one (even antigovernment dogma).
> >
> > Wrong. There is a form of nocoercive government. It is called a
> > hyperdemocracy. In a hyperdemocracy, it isn't one man, one vote,
its one
> > man, one veto. Thus, nobody can be coerced into anything, as all
it takes
> > to stop a new law is one veto against it. What is required to make
such a
> > system work over the long term is that a) the original
Constitution be set
> > up such that it guarrantees maximum functional freedoms to everybody
> > equally, but b) also give effective mechanisms for people to pursue
> > remedies to intrusions into their freedoms by others. It should
recognise
> > the market as the ultimate arbitrator of cost and value, and
should set
> > some basic rules for the organization of cooperative organizations
of
> > individuals such that they don't violate individuals freedoms,
inside or
> > outside the organization. The articles in such a document should
be vague
> > enough in general areas to allow for new technologies or cultural
changes
> > without need for revision, but also be specific enough in the
freedoms area
> > such that violators cannot dissemble and fudge the facts, and
should be
> > clear enough about what is considered coercive government such that
> > individuals can easily take private legal action against the
government.
> > The government should be subject to its own laws.
> >
> > Mike Lorrey
> >
> >
> So one industrial polluter can veto all environmental laws and one
> sexist/racist/ageist/religiobigot can veto all civil rights and equal
> access laws. Joe
>
Without press censorship, such a company would be exposed and the
general public would demand a change. Other businesses would refuse
to do business with this industry. We police ourselves much better
without the government's "help".
==
Terry Donaghe: terry@donaghe.com
Individual, Anarcho-Capitalist, Environmentalist, Transhumanist, Mensan
My Homepage: <http://www.donaghe.com/terry.htm>
Visit The Millennium Bookshelf: <http://www.donaghe.com/mbookshelf.htm> Prepare yourself for the next age of mankind!
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:59 MST