Re: Frustration with politics explained

Dan Clemmensen (
Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:33:29 -0400

Geoff Smith wrote:
> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> > There are two types of political commentary that are IMO
> > appropriate to this list. The first relates to short-term
> > political activities that affect the short-term rate of
> > technical progress. For example, an attempt to ban research
> > on faster computers, or to outlaw strong cryptography, may
> > qualify.
> Yes. I agree, this is something I would like to see more of on the list.
> "Ten things you can do to live an anaracho-capitalist life now!" What are
> the current, practical things we can do to not be hypocritical against our
> politics(or lack of politics) I would like to *make the assumption* that
> anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism is the best system, and go from there.
> For example, if the government out of the blue offers me a big grant to do
> scientific research, do I say "No, I think scientific research should be
> funded by private corporations" or do I say "Okay, I'm just getting all
> the money back that I pay in taxes" or "I can put this money to better
> use than someone else can." Any ideas?

This is not quite what I had in mind as a starting point. I think we
to accept that the current economic/political system exists, that it
works pretty well, and that it has a fairly high inertia. Therefore, the
most we can expect is gradual movement, except as the system is forced
to change in response to very rapid technological change. Example:
technology permits direct democracy and real-time access to all
government functions, but neither is likely because the system doesn't
require it: inertia wins.

IMO, the existing system suffices to permit technolological advance to
the singularity. Any non-radical change is unlikely to advance or
retard the event by much. Any radical change is likely to retard the
event because of of the upheaval associated with the change, regardless
of the relative efficiency of the resulting system.