Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:50:56 -0700
From: BigBooster <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [posthuman] Re: Posthuman Politics
At 04:24 PM 10/17/2001 +0100, "Steve Nichols" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Can you see any difference between "rules that are
>agreed amongst the players" and pretended "laws"
>"promulgated" by political liars and cheaters?
>>So you are a complete nihilist and want any type of
>>behaviour to be allowed?
>Argumentum ad hominem plus straw man.
>>What about property law?
>>How would business function without commercial
>Straw-man fallacy, or irrelevant non-sequiturs.
>Do you think that in the absence of your silly
>notion of "law" people won't be able to make
>agreements regarding property and commerce?
>Seems similar to the silly notion that you can't
>have morality without "God" (so-called). Is that
>why you sometimes capitalize your "Law" idol?
>If you're trying to convince me that your thinking
>in the area of so-called "law" and your so-called
>"posthuman politics" are at the same level as the
>Vatican, Mormons, Baptists, Islam &c., you're doing
>a great job!
Do you have a personal grudge against Courts or the Police?
You certainly aren't managing to keep your rational balance
amongst all this anti "Law" tirade.
Your idea of personal agreements regards property transactions is
a complete non-starter. What about all the parties not aware of
the agreement? Also, how do you enforce the agreement without
a wider code of behaviour?
I don't believe in "Natural Law" in any divine sense, but a belief
that there are "Laws" is pretty undeniable ... every country
has them and they are written down. If you want to play chess,
how can you meaningfully engage with other players if you define
the Laws of Chess exactly how you choose?
Animal society have social norms, enforced by violence or
threat, but they don't have writing or objective language. Are you
in favour of monkey-troupe type societies when you basically
do whatever you can get away with, including killing the young
of rival males?
I would hope that posthuman 'codes/ laws' are a big modification
of those devised by primitive human societies, but I wouldn't want
to replace Law with Lawlessness, which seems to be your aim.
Oh yeh, and this e-group is subject to Yahoo! terms of service
(rules). Surely I am entitled, like them, to ask adherence to
my company's requests, for e-groups that choose to avail themselves
of belonging to this 'club.' If you break club rules/ laws the Yahoo!
could (directly & legally) kick you out of the club? You accepted
the rules as a pre-condition of joining ... so what is wrong with Laws
of this type?
Sure there is a problem with (human) POLITICIANS, but this is
a separate issue entirely from the Legislative process. They would
probably be grasping ego-maniacs even in our monkey-troupe
My advice .. read King Asoka. www.multisell.com/philosophy.htm
and learn about Bentham , JS Mills and others regarding
when it is OK to break an unjust Law. I want better Laws and a
better process, not the removal of Law with no viable replacement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:14 MDT