From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue Sep 09 2003 - 15:38:35 MDT
(Please note that the nation/culture thread is actually rather unrelated
to Brin's real point, which is practical politics)
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:43:41AM -0700, Spike wrote:
>
> As with Transparent Society, I agree in principle with
> Brin, but there are some very important details that have
> not been worked out. We should leave other societies to
> their own ways, however different levels of governments
> disagree. Take for instance the woman threatened with
> execution for copulation. She most likely opposes the
> sentence, as does her family, but the village might
> support it, whereas the province opposes but the
> nation supports. Which level of government shall
> we support or oppose? It is an oversimplification
> to just say let other nations do their thing. spike
Sure, but that does not change the basic idea. Libertarian theory says
one should be peaceful and not initiate coercion, but it is still OK to
defend oneself. Furthermore, systems of delegated defensive coercion
(neighbourhood associations, PPL firms or police forces) are acceptable
- within certain limits. Here things become applied and complex, and one
can spend forever analysing the best approach, various more or less
likely what-ifs and how to implement it - it has already been done on
this list and elsewhere. Other extensions and refinements of the theory
apply to cases of lack of information, deranged people, prepersons and
so on. Again a lot of complicated judgements but a fairly clear core
principle that now interacts with various other principles.
How OK it is to intervene coercively to save another person from
coercion or violence is in this complex area, but my understanding
(interpretation?) of the (a?) libertarian position would be that it is
usually OK, although it does not have to be a moral obligation. This is
based on the natural rights perspective. In order to save a human from
an unjust violation of her right to live it is OK to coerce her
violators (but avoid unnecessary violence; the case for whether they may
be killed in the pursuit of human rights is very iffy). This is of
course based on the universalist view that a certain hierarchy of rights
really do apply to all people no matter who, when or where they are and
that even socially agreed on laws about sex can not void the right to
life.
We should let others do their thing, but there are things that merit
intervention. But one should not see intervention as the default case,
but rather as a very extreme special case. We often go on far too much
about all the injustices and problems of the world to look at the vast
fields of positive results that we already have and how to extend them
more efficiently.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 09 2003 - 15:43:55 MDT