Neal Blaikie wrote:
>
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
>
> > > Hey, Brian, can you define what you mean by "other side"? And why this
> > > obsession with sides? How does this fit in with "onward and upward"? I
> > > see conflicting viewpoints being embraced here.
> >
> > The 'other side' has no interest in 'onward and upward'. They want
> > 'backward and down': primitivist tyranny. O & E is an extropic ideal,
> > not an entropic one.
>
> Right. My point exactly. Given this, how do old guard pundits like Heston
> and Limbaugh fit into this? They are status quo maintainers who only care
> about keeping what is theirs or what they perceive to be theirs. Just
> because their rhetoric sometimes coincides with some of the libertarian
> values espoused here, it doesn't make them in any way extropian. And I
> would say the same thing about anyone on the "left" who is not forward
> thinking.
>
> It reminds me of that tired old axiom, "The enemy of my enemy is my
> friend." Uh huh. Sure. Until you threaten them somehow.
I don't consider Limbaugh to be an 'old guard' pundit, and anyways, when
it comes to individual liberty, the sort of 'original intent' policy he
is 'old guard' about fits right in with extropic ideals of individual
liberties, he is pro-genetic engineering as well. One thing we need less
of is 'progress' as defined by the left in individual liberties in many
areas. I guess you never read the Heston speech either, since your only
real qualification for Heston being 'old guard' is that he is old.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:46 MDT