Max More wrote:
> As for Dan's comments, well I'm finding it hard to believe this is the same
> Dan Fabulich whose keenly analytical posts I'm use to. Setting some very
> simple ground rules is *crucial* to spontaneous order, not contrary to it.
Establishing ground rules IS crucial to Spontaneous Order. But an
essential premise of Spontaneous Order is that there are certain
rules, certain kinds of rules, which are totally unneccessary, even
bad to establish.
> And self-direction does not mean letting anyone who feels like it take a
> dump on your carpet or walk around your home smashing your furniture and
> insulting your family and friends.
Dumping on your carpet? No. Insulting your family and friends?
Consider the following argument: if by speech alone I can harm you
against your will, then speech is force. If this is true, then
whether or not you're a "[L|l]ibertarian", it seems there should be severe
restrictions on how and when people can initiate speech, just like how
there are severe restrictions on taking dumps on other people's
If you don't agree with that conclusion, then modus tollens tells me
that the following claim holds: unrestricted speech is a good idea,
because, although sticks and stones can break our bones, words can
never hurt us.
Words can never hurt us.
> As for making it look like we have something to hide--you've
> completely lost me here. *Anyone* can get on the list simply by
> letting us know their name and how to reach them (information which
> will be kept confidential). If they are unwilling to accord us this,
> then more likely *they* have something to hide.
"Dan, why does ExI have this policy?" "Because some people have come
on this list and posted things we didn't want said. They said bad
things, and this policy is designed so that if somebody slanders again,
we'll be able to take appropriate action against them.
"After all, if they're not intending to slander us, then they have
nothing to hide, right?"
> Its funny that no one has apparently even noticed that other organizations
> comparable to ExI DO NOT EVEN PROVIDE A PUBLIC FORUM. Organizations like
> Foresight send email to their people, but don't provide an open forum like
> this. Why do you suppose that might be? Why are we being criticized so much
> for asking so little before allowing complete strangers into our much loved
> and long-inhabited on-line home?
Because we know how good it can get. Because fewer restrictions are
better than more restrictions, even if you're the guy with the least
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT