Re: humanism vs transhumanism?

Dan Fabulich (
Mon, 06 Apr 1998 00:58:35 -0400


Nico MYOWNA wrote:
>Once the direct voting democracy have made a decision, it havn't to force
>its operations on the minority who disapprove because the minority are
>able to leave and to split the community.

Care to tell that to all those who support the American Confederacy? You
can only "leave and split the community" (aka secede) if the voting
majority hasn't forbidden it.

*I* don't agree with most of Congress's laws, but it's still illegal for me
to sit in my house and secede from the USG. Try it yourself.

>Once the direct delegation democracy have made a decision, it havn't to
>force its operations on the minority who disapprove. The decision represen-
>ted a consensus/compromise among direct delegates (no consensus = no deci-
>sion). Each delegate had forwarded only the orginaly words of a group of

And if my delegate misrepresents me? See above.

>Once the direct consensus democracy have made a decision, it havn't to
>force its operations on the minority who disapprove because if there is a
>disapproving minority than there isn't a consensus among all members and
>therefore no decision.

I agree completely. Now, imagine direct consensus democracy happening on a
very small scale, even between just two people at a time, all over the
country. Plus, since both participants agree on the "vote" beforehand,
they will almost never need to be forced to agree with themselves (except
when they change their minds after voting). Now imagine people calling
these votes "contracts" and calling this system "the free market."

>Which parties? Political parties?

Participants. Individuals making a deal. All of them do so voluntarily in
a free market.

>Does you really mean that hunger is a voluntary feeling?

You may not volunteer to be hungry, but unless you can either feed yourself
or someone else volunteers to feed you, you will remain hungry. In a free
market, you usually convince somebody to voluntarily feed you by helping
them out in exchange; you cannot force someone else to feed you, however.

>Have you ever notices the "military" decision making procedures inside the
>industrial companies? --

So they are competetive. Fortunately, in the case of companies, they're
competing to see who can perform the services which are worth the most to
the most people... note that each and every buyer co-operates voluntarily
when they buy goods, and that the company which performs services which are
not worth enough to enough buyers eventually goes out of business.

The military, on the other hand, competes in the arena of force. It
requires no one's consent, and in no way competes in a way that maximizes
co-operation. The essential differences between these organizations,
therefore, is vast, even if they are both competing.

>Once the managment have made a decision, it have to force its operations
>on the majority of workers.

This is completely wrong. Under capitalism, corporations can't (legally)
force their employees to do anything. All of the employees volunteer to
work in a corporation. All those who don't volunteer to do what the CEO
wants don't have to work there at all. How is this force?

>Therefore capitalism in its dayly reality
>isn't much closer to "spontaneous order" than democracy.

Only your direct consensus democracy is actually spontaneous, and this I
agree with.

Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3