Re: Extropian DOES NOT EQUAL Libertarianism! [was RE: Gore Shocks

Robert J. Bradbury (
Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:28:57 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 wrote:

> I think the Extropian Principles are inconsistent with unchecked central
> state authority or the use of coercion against people and groups who mind
> their own business or to restrict the rights of individuals to make whatever
> contracts they choose to make.


> I think that someone who holds extropian
> values and ideals should by and large take the stance that people who propose
> a statist solution to a social problem have the burden of showing how that
> proposed solution doesn't do more harm than good by restricting the freedom
> of individuals to carry on their lives as they choose.

Agreed with a footnote. We have to face the reality of *how* to move from the existing "statist" solution where the benefits & costs have complex evolutionary histories, to one where "states" strongly view their "mission statement" as one of minimal intervention. Change invokes the threat of survival and while the anarchists would like to do it tomorrow, I charge that *realistically* that will not happen (unless we can open a new frontier), so the requirement, if we are to avoid fantasies, is how to move step-by-step from the current reality *to* the "ideal" situation.

My perspective, is that if the environment is depromoting rational thought the best situation may be to use the weapons of the environment against itself. The threat of school competition might motivate the teachers to rise up against pin-headed school boards. This is not a theoretical argument, it *is* a reality based argument.

A key aspect of the discussion, as discussed in the Tough Questions thread and commented on by Hal in his eloquent comment regarding parents as "caretakers", is the issue of "freedom of individuals" and the problem that there are many individuals, who simply refuse to treat others (especially children) *as* individuals.