Re: Transhuman fascists?

From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 12:10:10 MST


Zero Powers wrote:

> >From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
> >To: <extropians@extropy.com>
> >Subject: Re: Transhuman fascists?
> >Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:06:43 -0800
> >
> >On Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:27 PM Zero Powers zero_powers@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> > > The courts have recognized (created) a right of privacy, but it is not
> >an
> > > absolute right. It can be abridged to further a "compelling" state
> > > interest.
> >
> >But the laws have always diluted freedom. In fact, is there any right
> >which
> >the courts have consistently upheld when there has been an argument about a
> >"compelling" state of societal interest?
>
> Laws have not "always diluted freedom." The US Constitution and the Bill of
> Rights are laws and they legislated unprecedented limitations upon the
> ability of the government to abridge the rights of the people. Also one
> person's "freedom" is often another person's oppression. Before the Voting
> Rights Act, the states were "free" to preclude blacks from voting. The VRA
> diluted this "freedom." But did its overall effect enhance or inhibit
> freedom?
>
> It's true that no one has any *absolute* rights. But such a society could
> never work (at least not if it was populated by humans). If you had an
> absolute right to liberty, you could never be imprisoned no matter what
> heinous crime you committed. So you would be "free" to rape, pillage and
> murder all you wanted and the state would not be free to seek redress.
> Would that enhance or inhibit liberty?

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Your arguments are the
juvinile rantings of an adolescent prototypical fascist, who beleives the
propaganda he or she has been fed without thinking out the consequences. Rights
of the individual ARE absolute in that the government cannot infringe on them.
The limit on an individuals rights only exists at the border of the rights of
another individual. Your claim that 'freedom is oppression' is mere Orwellian
doublespeak.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:43 MDT