Re: Immortality and Resources

Max M (
Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:16:50 +0100

> From: Lee Daniel Crocker

> > But is it really so bad
> > to have social consience built into the society?
> > MAX M Rasmussen
> Yes, it is. "Social Conscience" assigns rights to an entity called
> "society" which deserves no rights.

Yes it does.

> and takes them away from enities
> that do deserve them: individuals. At the same time, it destroys
> individual responsiblity.

Not neceseraly. Social democracy is not the same as socialism. It's more
like what you had in the US with the "new deal."

> An eight-year-old can understand the difference between a set and its
> members; you cannot perform operations on one that you can on the other.
> A set of people is not a person.

Yeah let's get personal and insulting, that will probably help discussion.

> A person has will, and can act for
> his own benefit. When you create "society", and assign it rights, you
> have given rights to an entity with no means or will to exercise them,
> and no way to benefit from them.

"no means or will"? A society is an organisation. An organisation can
easily have a free will. Or perhaps you mean that an individual is aways
more powerfull than organisations?

> Therefore, it must take from certain
> individuals and give to others, and cannot be held accountable for
> either. Even its laudable goals such as helping the unfortunate wind
> up in the hands of faceless bureacracies blindly following rules, taking
> by force and doling out by formula. Compassion at gunpoint is not
> human compassion.

How have you been compassionate recently as an individual?

> "Social Conscience" is an evil, not because its goals are evil, but
> because it does not--it cannot possibly--achieve those goals as well
> as individual rights and responsibility can.

I have been to the US and would feel ashamed as a an individual if we
treated poor and sick people like that here in Denmark.

The faster technolgy progresses the less the libertarian ideas will work
for the common man. It will turn the world into a place where a technoelite
owns the mean of production. When technology makes it possible for the most
talented people to do allmost everything what will then happen to the not
so talented?

Society didn't become truly rich until the common man became wealthy. Even
Henry Ford saw that.

Paradox: If individuals have rights and shows social responsibility, how
can individuals then believe in a system that only bennefits the most
talented people. (survival of the fittest).

BTW i don't consider myself to be a social democrat but a social
liberalist. And certainly there should be as little goverment as possible.

MAX M Rasmussen
New Media Director



Planning to live for ever
Living like death comes tomorrow