Re: meaning of life

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 11:56:29 MST

From: Michael Lorrey <>

>>Brian D Williams wrote:
>> John Locke's "Social Contract", a darn good idea, but we just
>> adopted it. I agree with Heinlein, man has no "Natural" rights.

>Actually, it was Rousseau who came up with the 'social contract',
>but this was not a social contract of trust as I speak of in my
>article at exi-freedom, but of socio-economic dependency and debt,
>which Bakunin refined to include the individual's debt to the
>assets created by the labor of the dead in their lifetimes.

Actually, according to the Internet encyclopedia (thanks Jimminy)
of philosophy it was Hobbs in chapter 13-15 of "Leviathan" who
first defines the social contract, Locke and Rousseau developed it
from there.

I always remember Locke's version because Jefferson (Thomas)
mentions him so often.

>The rest of the world functions on the delusion that 'society' is
>some living entity independent of the individual, and ludicrously
>believes that the individual cannot survive without 'society' as
>if he/she were merely a cell of the 'society' organism. The rest
>of the world claims that the individuals rights are granted to it
>by society, with society's sufferance, and can be rescinded as
>'society' deems necessary. This is pure fascism, simply put. It is
>an evolution of the old 'divine right' principle by which kings
>reigned over their serfs, where there is only one true sovereign,
>the king, who is now represented by the government, which is
>presumed to be the thinking organ of the 'society' organism.

I see government as the result of social contract, I do not
recognize "society" as other than the other members of the
human species.

>It is not surprising that the idea of the sovereign individual is
>under assault even here in the US. The last century of immigration
>by people infected by socialist memes to the US has created our
>culture war. The 'Meme War' described by Steven Barnes in
>"Kaleidoscope Century" exists here and now. Heinlein never said
>that man has no natural rights, and his novel "The Puppetmasters"
>was an allegory to explain my argument here. The bug parasites
>represent the 'society as organism' meme.

>Don't buy the con, Brian. Man has natural rights because he has
>evolved under the laws of physics and biology to be the creature
>he/she is. Natural Rights describe the evolved native capabilities
>of the human animal in a state of nature. The human animal
>survives best when he/she is free to communicate, associate,
>wonder and worship, accumulate property, travel, and hunt and
>defend themself against agressors. Its NATURAL.

This seems to be merely a matter of semantics. If I was the only
individual on the planet, there would be no laws other than those
I imposed on myself. I of course under these circumstances would
have no rights, and need none.

>Nor does this mean that extropy is against natural rights, either.
>Evolution is the rule, and evolution is about improvement,
>optimization to the environment. As we expand our environment into
>space and into cyberspace, it is our potential to evolve to
>survive in these environments, and that we have the naturally
>evolved ability to aid in our own evolution demonstrates this is
>our natural right. Those that oppose extropy oppose natural

I see this as semantics again. My lone individual above hopefully
evolves, but does only what he chooses to do, and the laws of
physics allow. He has no rights, natural or otherwise.


Extropy Institute,
Adler Planetarium
Life Extension Foundation,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT