Re: Welfare states, etc.

Michael Lorrey (
Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:12:11 -0500

Grant Sparks wrote:

> From: Mark D. Fulwiler <>
> >We have all heard the libertarian and anti-libertarian arguments and
> >rehashing them really is a waste of time.
> I disagree. While I have also heard these arguments many times before, this is
> the first time I have seen them discussed in depth by extropians. When I joined
> this list I was already convinced of the tech/trans humanist side of
> extropianism but from lurking and occasionally contributing I have found that
> even some of my political views have changed because of the well thought out
> arguments presented here.

Yes, I for example, was slightly anti-abortion when I came to the transhuman list 3
years ago. However, the libertarian discussions here and there, especially in the
defining the differences between the concepts of rights by natural law and rights by
force, I came to realize the erroneous basis for my beleif at the time.
While many long time subscribers to this list may tire of discussing subjects that
have been rehashed several, sometimes many, times before on the list, remember that
we are not a static body. Not only do new subscribers come to the list all the time,
but as new information is discovered by science, we can sometimes change or modify
our most cherished ideas and beleifs. Many new subscribers come to the list full of
memes supporting many statist and anti-tech, anti-freedom positions, and we are not
helping them increase extropy in their lives if what they hear is a huge stream of
"been there, done that already, bored to death" from people on a topic that may be
entirely fresh to them, or on a topic for which the typical extropic position is
completely new to them.

Viewing the list as a personal clique is not very extropic. Viewing the list as a
cooperative school of extropy is extropic.

> Not that I had far to go anyway, I've got a pre-existing strong crypto-anarchist
> tendency, but a good example is the issue of gun control. Many would remember
> that this featured for a while on this list.
> I do not live in the USA, my country has only a small fraction of the crime and
> violence, so I've always though that gun control is the best way of keeping our
> country from following the USA down these roads. As a result I have always
> opposed wide scale ownership of high-powered firearms.
> I don't know if I'm a better extropian for it, but Michael Lorrey has convinced
> me to buy a gun and stockpile other defensive measures. I'm still against
> widespread ownership of guns, but only for *everyone else*, not for *me*.

Wow. You mean somebody actually listens to what I say?

Here in the Lorrey household, the family gun population went up by 5 just this

For anybody in the New England area that is into or would like to try their hand at
Skeet, my club up here in NH is running skeet, open to the public every Sunday,
10-3, until the regular season starts, and more shooting days will then be

> Bytes are cheap and easily recycled. Let them chatter about welfare states a
> bit more, I've got some other long held beliefs that I think are in need of an
> update.

Good attitude.

Essentially, any anarchist of any flavor who beleives that all political power comes
from the individual (and if you don't, I think you may have your definition messed
up), must beleive that there is no system or contract in the world that any one
individual is obligated to without recourse. This includes the 'social contract'
concept. The individual, from whome all power flows, should be able to critically
examine every possible obligation and choose yea or nay on it. No individual should
be compelled by external force to surrender any power involuntarily. This is the
essential problem with democracy.

Rule of the majority is as much a tyranny to the dissenting individual as the
harshest dictatorship. This is why so few democracies in history have remained in a
stable balance between dictatorship and communist tyranny for very long, and why
individual rights tend to erode over time in such democracies. The majority of the
moment will always find somebody elses rights that need to be infringed upon for the
'common good', the 'general welfare', or for any greater measure of security.
Eventually, nobody is free any longer, except government is free to do what it
wills, as it then becomes omnipotent.

The solution is hyperdemocracy and total voluntary association. The internet is an
excellent example of these two practices.

For those of you who may not know what hyperdemocracy is, it is essentially
different from standard democracy in that while democracy is 'one man, one vote',
hyperdemocracy is 'one man, one veto'. It is a consensual system, where unless all
agree, then nothing can be done as a whole. Only those who agree can form action for
their own interests. Those who don't are not obligated, and cannot become obligated
or violated by the decisions of those that do.

There have been small hyperdemocratic proposals here in the US. There have been
proposals for the tax system where an individual can declare in their income tax
what programs they want to fund with their taxes, and those they don't want funded
(of course, they have avoided the idea that one should be able to decide how MUCH to
fund). These are good first steps, and should be encouraged.

   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------ Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?