Re: Extropian Principles 3.0: Please comment on new version

Max More (
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:36:39 -0700

At 12:10 PM 10/12/98 +1300, J. Maxwell Legg wrote:
>I never saw the term "centralized allocation system" in Max's Principles
3.0 but I did
>read the term "moneyless allocation system". The terms aren't the same and
to make them
>so is provocative. Even the U.S. military realize their forth coming
omnisensorial data
>fusion systems offer no hope of "centralized planning". A neural (net)
economy isn't a
>centralized system and yet can't be called a money system either, so any
>non-inflamatory discussion about allocation systems needs to include this
new 21st
>century feature.

Indeed, I did not use the term "centralized allocation system" in the Principles 3.0. I mentioned that in a commentary here on the list. Thanks to the perceptive comments I received on the first draft, I have been thinking hard about just what the Principles should say about social/economic orders. I do want them to clearly stand against any centralized, authoritarian system that disallows experimentation. A Stalinist transhumanism is *not* compatible with the Extropian Principles.

Although I do believe that markets in some form or another are usually the best way of organizing things today and probably for quite a while to come, I no longer want to make that an essential part of the principles. For instance, I certainly want the Principles to be compatible with J. Maxwell Legg's proposed system. A moneyless allocation system, if it could be made to work, would be perfectly compatible. Any other changes in the economic order that preserve freedom, experimentation, and improvement are compatible.

Although some people (not you, Maxwell) seem intent on portraying me as a defender of today's institutions despite what I have written, I have no problem with finding a way to free people from dependence on working for others. I think far more people could do this *now*, not in some theoretical future, if they restricted consumption and invested until they could live off investment income. After that, you're free to take or refuse any work without worrying about paying the bills.

These considerations have led me to drop "Spontaneous Orders" and any talk of markets as fundamental. I am currently working on replacing this principle with one called "Open Society". I will be posting it for comment once I complete a draft. Maxwell, I will be particularly interested in your comments on this replacement principle. I think you'll find it completely compatible with your goals.



Max More, Ph.D. (soon also: <>)
Consulting services on the impact of advanced technologies President, Extropy Institute:,