Joe E. Dees wrote:
> 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
Hardly. Since pollution spills over onto other's property, they can sue the
polluter as a civil action. The reason polluters have historically gotten away
with widespread pollution was because our mercantilist system convinced the
judges back in the late 1800's that the common economic benefits of industry
outweighed the damages to others from pollution. Based on 1800's economics, they
were generally right because the return on investment back then was so high, and
nobody knew anough about the health impacts on humans even to estimate the
economic impact of smog, or to calculate the impact of water pollution on
fisheries.
In a hyperdemocratic economic system, the good of the whole is calculated based
on the good of the individual. If individuals are being harmed, then the strength
of individual liberties are under threat. Polluters are made to pay an accurate
cost to clean up their pollution and repair damages under such a system.
Pollution is really just the externalization of costs onto others. Since this
obviously coerces others into paying for something they don't want to, it is a
imposition on their individual freedoms.
As to the bigotry scenario you propose, you completely ignored what I said. Please reread it below:
> 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.
Thus in a situation of a bigot refusing service to someone he or she does not like, you have to weigh the individuals right to choose who he or she does business with against the fact that the 'victim' of bigotry here is being denied choice in the market, but only if there is a monopoly or duopoly situation for the good or service the 'victim' is seeking. If there are three or more competitors in the market for that good or service, then the 'victim' is not being denied free choice of access to resources. So while they may be discriminated against, there is no adverse economic impact of the discrimination. The bigot is rude and obnoxious, but if there is no adverse economic impact, there is nothing done wrong about it in a political sense. What the 'victim' can do though in such a society is document and publicize the instance of discrimination across the internet and other media. Soon enough business owners get the idea that its not good for business ( i.e. its not profitable) to be a bigot, if the market tells them so.
Mike Lorrey