From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 30 2002 - 23:45:14 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > That's my point - at some point, even in a libertarian government, someone
> > needs to have personal responsibility for the artistic appearance of
> > public buildings. There is nothing wrong with Ashcroft taking charge of
> > the appearance of his building. Curtains are not "vandalism" and he is
> > not destroying his predecessors' efforts, just temporarily switching them
> > off. Sure, Ashcroft's decision may only be temporary; sure, we may
> > disagree with it; my point is that is that it is legitimately Ashcroft's
> > decision. How would we feel if a transhumanist Attorney General were
> > mocked in the media for putting a curtain over, say, a painting of God
> > judging sinners?
> Fair point. In a /truly/ libertarian society of course, there /are/
> no such things as "public" buildings, so the problem doesn't exist.
> But I suppose since we do have to compromise on that point a bit, we'll
> have to compromise on the public art issue too. And just for the
> record, I'd leave that painting--as I'd leave one depicting slavery,
> or war, and other despicable things--they're still my history if not
> my future.
This thread now concludes, the two former disputants having communicated
their views to each other, adjusted their views as a result of new
information received, and reached effective agreement.
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST