Re: Transhumanist Declaration

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:09:02 -0400

PaR wrote:

> >> dangerous means is not to retaliate with even greater primitive and
> >> dangerous means. This simply leads to a vicious circle.
> >While I agree with the upper statements, your last is at the least foolish,
> >and at the worst completely, criminally, ludicrous. To fail to respond with
> >greater force to an individual who uses force to impose his will, gain his ro
> >her ends simply winds up in a vicious cycle of them demanding more and more
> >from you until you are enslaved or dead.
> Agreed. After rereading what I had written I realized I had made a mistake.
> Can I rephrase my statement to say: there are certain times when using
> force is necessary and appropriate, and other times when it is not. I generally
> accept the libertarian principal of using force only for ones self defense and not
> "pro-actively." The trick and question is knowing when it is approropriate and
> necessary, and who gets to decide.

Any individual should and can decide for themselves. That is the central point of having all
political power be derived from the individual. If the average human cannot handle such simple
decisions, then individual liberty is a really really really stupid idea. I don't think it is.

> Up here in New Hampshire (yup, here I go again), as well as across the river
> in Vermont, we have possibly the highest per capita level of gun ownership in
> the industrialized world, and probably the one of the highest in the entire
> world, yet I challenge anyone on this list to name one European or other
> industrialized nation of the same size or larger as our state, that has a more
> restrictive gun policy yet has a lower crime rate. You can't.
> "An armed "society" is a polite "society" -- I forget who said this but I think it
> is appropriate here. (quotes are mine).

I recall Robert Heinlein saying it, but he may have been quoting someone else...

> Again, I generally agree with you. I am
> certainly not a proponent of "gun control" (so-called). My intention in my origional
> statement was only meant to imply 1)that *I* would prefer to avoid violence and 2)
> that sometimes using "more sophisiticated means" is appropriate. "More sophisticated
> means" might include assasinating a dictator like Hitler in an early time frame before
> he had the opportunity to start a war, rather waiting until you have a full blown war.
> "More sophisticated means" may also mean using non-violence. For example, I think the
> IRS is little more than mafia with good PR. But instead of starting a violent
> revolution to overthrow the IRS, I simply arrange my affairs so I don't support them in
> any way.

While being smart and planning ahead are always good policies, it is still likely that there will
be some time in your life when you have to stand up to some sort of bully. Being prepared and
knowing what needs to be done are 9/10ths of what it takes to do the right thing.

> I hope this clears up my point.

Yes it does, thank you. I hope that those who might have taken solace in what might have been a
different position will think differently.

   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------ Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?