>From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
>I suspect there are many more construction workers than molecular
>biologists or military officers in the U.S.A. [This is not
>intended as any comment towards construction workers on the list].
>Will someone here who is in the anti-corporate, anti-government
>camp *please* explain to me how having the construction workers
>vote on how much of their tax dollars get collected or where those
>tax dollars get spent (if they get collected and spent at all) is
>going to result in a greater extropic vector in health care *or*
>defense than the current system?
I'm a construction worker, but I'm also pro-corporation and pro-
reasonably sized government.
I have no problem seeing the advantage to investing in scientific
research, and I doubt many of my associates do either.
>This, to me, is the fundamental problem with libertarianism is
>that there is an *implicit* assumption that a free market economy
>is optimal. But a free market economy is one that is primarily in
>ones own self-interest -- and *most* peoples' own "self-interest"
>(predisposed by genes, warped by social experiences) *DOES NOT*
>remotely resemble an extropic idea platform. Lets be realistic --
>humans are programmed for survival, sex and fun -- not
>complexification.
I tend to agree for now, government of a certain size functions as
an effective check on free markets, and will continue to do so till
something better comes along.
>Note -- I am not arguing the current system is "optimal". I *am*
>arguing that the current system is better than a 1 person = 1 vote
>system where the average person gets to vote on things they are
>ill-qualified to evaluate.
I don't agree, the more information in the system the better. I
think history has shown the fallacy of "those who think they know
best."
>In preparation for the criticisms -- yes, scientists could spend
>more time educating people so they want to support their efforts.
>But there is only so much time in a day and the time one spends
>educating individuals uneducated in ones area of expertise is time
>that cannot be spent exercising that expertise productively.
I think all members of a society have the right to self
determination, I'm against elitism.
>I believe I've stated it before, perhaps in alternate forms, and
>I'll state it again. If you want to vote on it you have to be
>able to demonstrate sufficient knowledge to cast such votes in a
>considered and rational manner. *THAT* is what extropianism is
>about.
Demonstrate it according to whose criteria?
>Just because your atoms happen to be organized in the form of a
>"human being" doesn't inherently give you extropic voting rights
>in my book (and Anders can come down on me all he wants for this
>statement). One has to demonstrate that one isn't inherently
>un-extropic (e.g. bin Laden) and then further demonstrate an
>extropic behavior history before one gets to cast votes in an
>extropic allocation of resources (at least IMO).
Not the way it works in this society. Like I've already said I
think history has dispelled the "we know best" fallacy.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT