>of years.
note: "Backing for" is not in my english dictionnary, but i suspect it's
similar
to "protecting rights". If I made a mistake, sorry.
Most of the time, in a conflict, everybody is fighting for one's rights.
Self proclaimed
"Bad guys" are quite rare in history. There is always a moral justificati=
on
somewhere. =
Now, I will not discuss to know if man is naturally a predator or not (th=
is
is an endless debate...). I will neither discuss to know if transhuman ha=
s
to be predator
or not. But I think there is a logical flaw in this argument:
-If you think it's "natural" (mmhh, I don't like this term) for man to be=
"predator" =
and "forceful" so, every strategy is good to increase your power. Includi=
ng
the State.
If you think it's immoral to pay taxes and that the State is a thief, it
only proves that
you found a better predator than you. That's life! =
Now, I would like to precise my conception of "Left anarchy". It's not
about theft of pigs or anything else, it's a system which can only work i=
f
it profits for everybody, otherwise it's not anarchy. It's an economical
system where the transaction does not occur between two individuals A and=
B, but between A and the whole system. A does not "sell" something to B,
but simply put it in the environment (like when you
release a software in "public domain"), where B can find it.
I'm not sure, but I suspect this has lot in common with the "complex
bartender" proposed by Eliezer recently, although I did not understood al=
l
the details of his implementation. Am i wrong, Eliezer ?
Bye, =
Remi =