Date sent: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:25:02 -0500 From: Michael Lorrey <mike@lorrey.com> Organization: Mikeysoft To: extropians@extropy.com Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> Joe E. Dees wrote:
>
> > Ok, you support the existence of government. But do you support
> > the
> > existence of a coercive (violence, theft toward the individual)
> > government? If so, how do you support those views in terms of
> > Extropianism. If not, please explain how a non-coercive government
> > could exist...
> >
> > An entirely non-coercive government cannot exist; such an absolute
> > is an abstract, unreifiable construct, resembling a "straw saint" (an
> > "if we can't have perfection, let's not have anything" kind of
> > argument). But since there are necessary, essential and
> > indispensable services which only some form of government can
> > provide, it is useful for us to keep total non-coercion before us as an
> > asymptotically approachable goal, towards which we strive by
> > working to make the government we must have as non-coercive as
> > possible, while still able to perform its necessary, essential and
> > indispensable functions for us. If this violates some obscure tenet of
> > Extropian dogma, then there's something wrong with Extropianism at
> > that point, for the very concept of dogma is itself a coercive,
> > intellectual freedom-stealing one (even antigovernment dogma).
>
> Wrong. There is a form of nocoercive government. It is called a
> hyperdemocracy. In a hyperdemocracy, it isn't one man, one vote, its one
> man, one veto. Thus, nobody can be coerced into anything, as all it takes
> to stop a new law is one veto against it. What is required to make such a
> system work over the long term is that a) the original Constitution be set
> up such that it guarrantees maximum functional freedoms to everybody
> equally, but b) also give effective mechanisms for people to pursue
> remedies to intrusions into their freedoms by others. It should recognise
> the market as the ultimate arbitrator of cost and value, and should set
> some basic rules for the organization of cooperative organizations of
> individuals such that they don't violate individuals freedoms, inside or
> outside the organization. The articles in such a document should be vague
> enough in general areas to allow for new technologies or cultural changes
> without need for revision, but also be specific enough in the freedoms area
> such that violators cannot dissemble and fudge the facts, and should be
> clear enough about what is considered coercive government such that
> individuals can easily take private legal action against the government.
> The government should be subject to its own laws.
>
> Mike Lorrey
>
>
So one industrial polluter can veto all environmental laws and one
sexist/racist/ageist/religiobigot can veto all civil rights and equal
access laws. Joe