You know, I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading anything I'm writing. (I'm
also wondering if this isn't a waste, really. No one else is responding, either
to tell me I'm full of it, or explain anything. I don't want to just waste
resources, so if no one else is interested, I'd say we just let it drop.)
I've yet to say I agree with any of these ideas I'm talking about (and, in
fact, have said I don't) and yet you're responding as if I am promoting them. To
be clear, I'm doing 2 things.
1) I have been a libertarian for a number of years (12, or so) but lately have
begun to see some ideas as flawed. I'm trying to see if I can work them out, on
a list where I know the people are intelligent and engaged. If what I say is
interesting, they'll respond. Extropianism is not, as some assert,
transhumanism+libertarianism, but a large number of extropians are also
libertarians, and so the ideas seem to suit either one.
2) My actual degree is in Journalism, with a Public Relations emphasis. If, as I
think, I want people to see extropianism as it is, to listen, to pay attention,
and to either let people do as they wish or even support them, I have to get
them to listen. They won't do that now, and I am wondering how to get them to.
I'm making observations based on my own thinking and experiences I've had.
I'm hoping you realize I'm not 'flaming' you, but am using your responses
(so far, you've been about it) to make some points, and respond to others.
>From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>Hmm. So you are all for actual major government nastiness if the money extorted
or whatever goes to fund what you care >most about? How far does that go? Are
you willing to see people robbed, beaten, even killed to fund this stuff? Do
the >ends utterly justify the means in your mind?
You are personally defining someone's rights (or accepting someone else's
definitions) and then holding people to them. What about all those people who
disagree with your ideas of rights, their sources and derivations, your logical
structure? If you want to be allowed to make your own mind up, why deny someone
else the same? By defining the terms of the debate (what a right is, how logic
works, etc.) you really stop any debate. Yes, there have to be rules or chaos
results. But, you're (in effect) saying thousands of years of mainstream
philosophy, theology (natural rights are derived from religion, despite
assertions otherwise), etc. I might agree, but, again, I'm used to being in a
minority position.
>No. I am not forcing anyone to do anything but leave me alone. All I
>ask for is a negative, the absence of coercion. If you want to be
>really twisted I guess you can say I am denying someone's right to
>murder, plunder and enslave me. But to say that would assume there is
>such a thing as some right to do these things. I don't care what people
>agree with. I care whether or not they live with me and one another in a
>remotely civilized manner.
THIS may be the clearest example yet of what I mean. YOU are deciding how the
debate goes, on what terms, what has relevance, etc. That is just not how it
goes. There are a whole lot of people whose emotions are part of their
reasoning, and you do have to deal with those people. Like sucks that way, but
it's reality.
>Your emotions are irrelevant. Give me your reasoning.
On this, I agree completely. However, what you don't seem to get is my point
about it. We won't ever get to minimalist government the way we're going. We
can't convince enough people to do so, and on this we DO need a majority. That's
just the way it works.
There's a very relevant point here. I first learned about the Libertarian
philosophy/party listening to Norma Jean Almodovar (I know I've spelled that
wrong) being interviewed. She took questions from callers, and the one that
sticks in my mind was the guy who told her Libertarianism 'was fine for those of
you with 130 IQs, but what about the rest of us? We need someone to take care of
us.' I am NOT making that up. The problem is that you assume your experience is
all there is, that no one could possibly think coercion is good. You are wrong,
I think history backs me up on this. Now, how do we deal with them? They do
still vote, and wield political power.
> But if you can have the system be truly minimalist giving the people that do
see what needs doing the maximum freedom >to proceed without coercion or
coercing others, then that is probably the best that can be achieved. Even
relatively stupid >people can see it is in their interest not to be coerced and
can even see what types of systems tend to produce the most >goodies.
Again, you're deciding beforehand what 'counts' and what doesn't and then
telling people they're wrong because they don't agree with you. Who decides
what's rational? On what basis? What's objective? What's reasonable?
I keep trying to say, if people value things other than individual freedom
as their primary value, what you're doing will turn them off. They then go about
their lives, letting the statists get their way (since they espouse the same
values, and haven't already prejudiced them by pissing them off) and we lose. I
have a problem with that.
>> Right, according to whom? I keep trying to make the point that people are not
>> operating from libertarian values, theory, etc. and then violating them. They
>> simply do not think libertarian theory is right, they don't value what we do.
>According to an objective view of what rights do and do not consist of.
>Which is the only thing that could possibly support any position on
>human ethics. If they think differently then lets compare the quality
>if the thinking, the reasoning and philosophy and its results (if any)
>and decide which appears more reasonable. Once again, truth is not a
>matter of opinion. Some values are mostly opinion at the current
>primitive state of our philosophies and knowledge. But what is needed
>for humans to flourish is not arbitrary or infinitely malleable. Truth
>is not democratically arrived at.
HOW??? That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out here. Telling me all I need
to do is build a rocket to get to the moon doesn't mean it's going to happen. I
have to know how. How are we going to minimize government, given that we're a
minority? How do we become a majority? How do we get what we need, even if we're
not a majority?
>Then your only logical alternative is to do your best to minimize government
coercion across the board so they don't stop >those technologies from being
developed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT