[Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology

[Natasha Vita-More]

At 02:31 AM 7/10/2005, Antonwrote:

>>Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>>>It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian
>>>approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global 
>>>regulatory framework".
>
>Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>>. . . why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political
>>theory when no one political theory is substantially adequate to 
>>intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change and 
>>how the world can function in order to protect individuality and
>>freedom.
>
>Every political regulation is prevention of some kind of individuality,
>denial of some kind of freedom.  That is the core competence of the
>political process; thus we agree that each political system is
>inadequate to preserving freedom and nurturing individuality.

Yes, we agree.


>Perry and I therefore prefer to rely on *non*political approaches.
>They require more imagination sometimes, but on the other hand they
>cause fewer deaths.  So we are disappointed to see Max now apparently
>willing to resort to the "easy" road of control by threat of violence.

Are you stating that libertarianism is "non" political?

Please be careful not to make assumption about what Max does and does not 
think without speaking directly to him.  Perhaps this is a good time to 
clear the decks and one on one with Max rather than forming assumptions 
amongst yourselves.  Assumptions can be beneficial when surveying the 
temperature, but are most often inadequate.

>Fyi & imho: libertarianism is more an ethical theory than a political
>theory; there are libertarian anarchists, libertarian democrats and
>libertarian monarchists.  Everyone agrees that government can exist
>and function only by doing things that would be wrong if a private
>party did them.  Libertarians hold that classifying such acts as
>"political" does not make them less wrong.  (Not all are anarchists
>because not all believe that the evils inevitably tolerated in anarchy are 
>less than those necessarily created by the state.)

Yes, I would like to see libertarianism as an ethical theory rather than a 
political theory, but unfortunately it is most widely known as a political 
stance or position.  Like most political position it falls short because it 
is dogmatized in a stance that is unwilling to negotiate.  Resolving 
conflicts and developing procedures for creating workable solutions is 
about negotiation.


>>If you are referring to Max  [...]
>>then you would find that his eloquence has evolved, not declined.
>
>That's not what bothers us.

Then come forward and talk with Max.

Best,
Natasha


>--
>Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
>"If only he'd used his genius for niceness instead of evil." --Agent 86

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist, Designer
Studies of the Future, University of Houston

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler
Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/exi-bay-chat/attachments/20050710/e35b87f5/attachment.htm>