>At 07:19 PM 10/23/97 -0700, extropians@extropy.com wrote:
>>
>>>Uninformed consent is not recognized. Unless the conditions of entrance
>>>are posted at the entrance, and the property owner will not allow
>>>entrance until conditions have been read and agreed to, there is no
>>>informed consent.
>>
>>Not recognized by who? As far as the US government is concerned,
>>every single driver in this country is liable for the "Implied Consent
>>Law," without having signed anything. Even ignorance of
>>the law will not stand up in court.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Also, if a child is born in an apartment
>>>> and its parents die sometime thereafter,
>>>> the landlord, in accord with libertarian
>>>> theory, has the right to evict the child,
>>>> to use force against the child, even as
>>>> the child did not sign any contract.
>>>
>>>SO you are saying that since the parents died in the apartment, in
>>>effect abandoning the child, then under the lease, the landlord can
>>>claim the child?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Libertarians seem to think that they have
>>>> an inherent right to property upon which a
>>>> preexisting claim has been placed: the U.S.
>
>The U.S. is not a person, and thus has no rights.
>
>>>Libertarians, as citizens, have the ultimate right, since the US is
>>>nothing but responsible to and exists with the consent of the citizens.
>>>The population was here before the government was.
>
>Consent is the highest form of acceptance. Think of acceptance as a scale,
>with gun-to-the-head *submission* on one end, and yes-that's-what-I-want
>*consent* on the other end. When viewed in this manner, it is clear that
>obey-or-leave-the-country is closer, on the scale of acceptance, to
>submission than it is to consent.
>
>>This brings up my major question about Libertarianism:
>>
>>I generally agree with Libertarianism in theory. But as far as I can
>>tell, for it to globally replace other systems of interaction, one
>>of two things would need to happen:
>>
>>1. Everyone would need to voluntarily adhere to it.
>
>Not so. See below.
>
>>But as long as there's a
>>profit to be made by coercion, I believe that some people
>>will always attempt to do so.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>2. Some group would need to impose Libertarianism on the world. Of course,
>>this imposition would go against Libertarian values.
>
>Libertarians unilaterally decide that aggression (initiation of force) is
>immoral, while proportionate defense against aggression is moral. I call
>this the Primethic Decision. This means that a libertarian will recognize
>and respect everyone's right to consent (to that which would otherwise be
>aggression), but will consider it moral to defend themselves wrt those who
>do not make the Primethic Decision, i.e. non-libertarians.
>
>The Primethic Decision (that aggression is immoral and defense is moral)
>thus establishes the right to consent, which is the basis for all universal,
>reciprocol rights. IOW, universal, reciprocol rights cannot exist without
>first recognizing the right to consent, which can only come from the
>Primethic Decision. All else is by consensual agreement.
>
>>This catch-22 makes me draw a parallel between communism and libertarianism:
>>sounds great, if everyone adheres. But usually the only way to get everyone
>>to adhere is with guns, which means fascism.
>
>It is not necessary that all adhere. Those who do not, should they aggress
>against others, are simply, and morally, defended against.
>
>>Can anyone talk me out of this?
>
>Does this help?
Yes! Okay, this makes sense, thanks.
The big question for me now is "If you divided the world into those willing to fight
for the spoils of fascism, and those willing to fight for unconstrained personal freedom,
who would win?"
One of Gardner Dozois (sp?) peerless "best sci-fi of the year" collections once had a story
where Gandhi attempted to help India resist Nazi Germany. The outcome seemed to suggest
that the author believed most people will knuckle under rather than going to the wall for
personal freedoms. If this is true, one person (or a small group) would need to be
capable of either resisting the imposed rule of a large number of people, or the cost/benefit
ratio of controlling that person would need to be too poor for the majority to bother (and
I think people like Newt generally feel "I don't care what the cost/benefit ratio is for
dominating that PARTICULAR person, since the benefit of creating a precident is incalculable").
How do others feel? Is this inherently untrue? Is one person's ability to fight the
establishment (or become invisible to the establishment) changing due to technology sufficiently
to escape this formula?
best,
k.
<bold>____________________________________________________
</bold>Kristen Brennan
codewarrior princess
brennan@jitterbug.com
http://www.jitterbug.com/pages/brennan.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GO d? s+:+ a-/a? C++ ?U W++$ K- M+ PS++ PE Y+
t+['60s only] 5? X+ R++[recovered] !tv b++++ DI++++
D--- G e* h+ r++ x++/z**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"In cyberspace, no one can hear you put on weight."
<bold>____________________________________________________
</bold>