Mark Shepard <email@example.com> wrote:
> When you [Newstrom] speak of guns being used to "...to stop the other
> from achieving their future goals" I think you overly dignify the "goals"
> of the attacker who is violating someone else's right to life, liberty or
Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> As for 'destroying someone else's future options', if someone uses
> deadly force in an act of agression against me, then they have voided
> their right to enjoy any future options, since they obviously have no
> regard for my future options. Get it?
I started the posting you reference by saying that "Guns are tools, and tools are useful." In reference to the above example, I said that the use of guns would be "Hopefully because that person's future plans are deemed to be 'bad'." I concluded my posting by saying that guns are "useful in negative situations that are not progressing in an extropian manner".
I'm sorry that this wasn't clear enough. When I say something is not extropian, I don't mean it is "bad", "unjustified" or "not useful".
I would say that the writing end of a pencil is extropian, because it creates and communicates. The erasing end of a pencil is anti-extropian, because it destroys and prevents communciaton. Erasers are not bad, however. Every pencil I own has an eraser, because I need them. My feelings about guns are the same. They limit others rather than enable ourselves. They destroy rather than create. They stop actions rather than starting actions. Sometimes such destruction is necessary, but let's not get pro-destruction and say that such actions are part of extropian ideals. Such actions are to avoid the loss of extropian potential. But let's not confuse avoiding loss with an actual gain.
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto:email@example.com> Author, Engineer, Entrepreneur, <http://www.gate.net/~harv> Consultant, Researcher, Scientist. <ldap://certserver.pgp.com>