> As Mr. den Otter has previously said is such a
> rude manner, I am rather extreme myself, although
> I personally take pride in that, since being
> average is to me as good as being dead. However,
> I hope here I have accurately described conditions
> for most people...
That's strange, I see free market capitalists as "get back to basics"
people. When compared to our natural systems, anarcho-capitalism is
the most conservative of all. It actively promotes the individual,
competition, survival, and all the other aspects of Darwinism. It
promotes the active expectance, and even advocacy, of genetically
pre-programmed drives. Perhaps many socialist systems should be best
considered as "reactionary" responses to this, but I consider the
general idea of "transcending" our genetic heritage to be sound
transhumanist thought. I certainly see no reason to consider this
And although anarcho-capitalism may make a nice "means" it is
certainly not the "end" - don't forget that we're transcending here.
That is transcending forwards to something new, not backwards to
something been and gone. And while I too can be accused of
questioning the rationality of morals and non-competitive behaviour
there is something behind them. Collective intelligence and ability
to communicate emotional experience is leading to a greater move
towards moral complexity. Is this good or bad? It's certainly bad
for your system, but what about those darn socialists?
Mr. Lorrey also wrote:
> Up here in New Hampshire (yup, here I go again),
> as well as across the river in Vermont, we have
> possibly the highest per capita level of gun
> ownership in the industrialized world [...] (oh,
> and btw, if you try to claim that its because
> we're all rich or something, our state is below
> the national average in per capita income by a
You're all so busy trying not to get shot you don't have time to make
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com