> The rest of the world functions on the delusion that
> 'society' is some living entity
I believe society _is_ a living entity. A pretty dumb one, but I think it
could be construed as being alive. (In the sense of an ant colony or a bee
hive, for instance.)
As we become more and more connected (eg, via the internet and, in the
future, via even faster and more ubiquitous methods of communication), I
believe the 'society' will take on even more characteristics of a living
being. As our rate of communication increases, our decisions will be more
affected by information we receive: our activities, although individually
chosen to fulfill our own desires, will become more synchronized than they
would have been without an efficient connection. Ultimately, with the advent
of implants that could facilitate practical telepathy, millions of human
beings could form something that might be perceived as a single mind. This
will show especially strongly in circumstances when the community needs to
act as a whole. For a corporation, such circumstances are present at all
times. For a country, such circumstances could be a state of war with
Naturally, the 'group entity' only behaves as a living thing, but it is
merely a system; it does not 'live' in the strict sense of the word. But if
something acts as if it is alive, then I see no reason to insist, like you
seem to, that it is "_NOT_ alive, because I _DON'T_ want to see it as
something that is alive".
We already have large numbers of such 'group entities', and they are of the
most ordinary kind - businesses, armies, and even entire countries. We all
actively participate in them - the only person I could think of that doesn't
participate in any 'group entity' would be someone living alone on an island
somewhere, with little or no interactions to any other human being.
So, whether you accept it or not, you _are_ a part of a 'living' organism.
You are but a tiny cell in it. The organism takes care of you, and you make
your own tiny contributions to the organism. Actually, you most probably
actively participate in more than one such organism. As do I.
> 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.
I think you are starting to repeat yourself. Not only that, you seem to talk
about 'people infected with memes' as if you were totally free of them.
> Man has natural rights because he has evolved under the laws
> of physics and biology to be the creature he/she is.
This statement makes 0 sense to me. I see no logical structure to it. It
sounds like "man has rights because he is". Have you ever even defined what
the term 'rights' means?
Perhaps we should start with that: if you disagree with the 'rights by
negotiation' definition that was proposed, why don't you come up with your
own definition of 'rights'? One that does not result in a circular
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT