Re: Cheerful libertarianism

From: alexboko (alexboko@umich.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 11:13:22 MDT

  • Next message: alexboko: "Re: How do you calm down the hot-heads?"

    Anders Sandberg wrote:
    > This is an interesting issue. Being very much into non-coercion
    > I don't consider either button acceptable at all; even changing
    > the mind of one opponent this way would be wrong - while I agree
    > that conserving memetic diversity is good, the right to one's mind
    > is even more important (and in this case both are aligned). But at
    > the same time I have no problems with the idea of debating and
    > perhaps convincing a lot of opponents. So what makes these cases
    > different? Is it just the "unnatural means" of the button?

    Oh, I was just being lazy in constructing the hypothetical scenario. I
    meant to say...

    "If I could push a button that would unleash a swarm of high
    toposophic-level PR/teaching/debate expert systems that would convince
    100% of humans that rationality, non-coercion, and science are good
    things, I would not do it. However, if their effectiveness could be
    intentionally handicapped just a little bit, I would."

    -- 
                                    --Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    "I think the guy who believes death is a natural part of
    life should get the seat with the broken seat-belt."
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 12:54:42 MDT