<html>
<body>
[My apologies for cc'ing the local ExI announcement lists. I feel I must
reply in the same forums to which the original messages were posted. I
will not post again to these lists. Please let me know if you wish to
receive any follow-up messages.]<br><br>
<br>
I address this message primarily to Perry Metzger, but also to Anton and
other interested parties.<br><br>
I want to explore the obvious differences in our perceptions of my past
and present political views, and my statements about them, as well as our
differences over what “extropy” means or implies. Most of all, I’m
perturbed by your comments about authenticity and I want to see if we can
resolve our differences. I know that you have strong, well-considered
views. I respect those views and your intelligence, which is why I want
us to work together to resolve this disagreement.<br><br>
Perry, you are obviously upset that a term you were using was, as you see
it, redefined in a way you dislike. You despise what you regard as
inauthentic statements and attempts to rewrite the past. Perhaps you are
also disappointed in what you see as the abandonment of a
political-philosophical viewpoint by someone who was a public champion of
that viewpoint. You seem to feel some outrage or disgust at what you see
as support for coercive practices.<br><br>
Let me repeat some things that you have said, Perry, some of them
publicly:<br>
“Perhaps you and Max pretend, even to yourselves, that he
never wrote lovingly of anarchism”<br>
“I also know that Max now denies in public that Extropianism
ever had anything to do with libertarianism, let alone
anarchocapitalism”<br>
“you and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive
means”<br>
“denying that he's changed position is disingenuous”<br>
“I don't try to pretend that the socialists I hung out with
when I was in college weren't socialists. I don't retroactively claim
that, in fact, they were something else entirely, and that our gatherings
and publications and such were something other than they were.”<br>
“pretending you are something you aren't”<br>
You also used the terms “tricky” “coy” and
“deception”<br><br>
Before I address the specifics I want to say that your statements perturb
me because I hold authenticity as a core value. I have always strived to
act and speak authentically, even when it made me very unpopular. To be
accused of pretending to be other than who I am, to be called coy,
deceptive, disingenuous, and so on, is shocking to me. It is certainly
not something I take lightly, especially when the accusation comes not
from some random ignoramus, but from someone such as yourself.<br><br>
When I was just a young lad and stood up in front of most of my school to
tell the local campaigning MP (Paddy Ashdown) that his government salary
and his job amounted to theft, I had no support and no approval. My
politics teacher, who was moderating the questions, tried to discourage
me from further comments, but I went ahead. My political views have NEVER
earned me any points throughout my years in an academia thoroughly
dominated by “liberals”, i.e. heavy duty statists. When I was 15 or 16, I
knew that my advocacy of nuclear power would be extremely unpopular with
fellow members of Friends of the Earth, but didn’t let that quiet me. (It
did soon lead me to realize that F.O.E. was not an organization I could
support.)<br><br>
At Oxford, when I stood up during debates in the Junior Common Room
(biweekly meeting of all undergraduates in the college to vote on various
proposals), I was often the ONLY person taking a stand on one side of an
issue. On the occasional issue, I might be joined by an ultraconservative
fellow, which probably only made me more unpopular. I vividly remember
being derided for stating my views that socialism was bad for Tanzania
and that what it needed were markets. Each meeting was an exercise in
standing in isolation, enduring heckling and ridicule. I never allowed
that to cause me to mask my views.<br><br>
When I went as a graduate student to USC in Los Angeles, from the start I
was completely open about my libertarian views, as well as about my
involvement in cryonics. My dissertation adviser referred to my “crazy”
views on these subjects. I continued to firmly express my views even
during the distorted news reporting on the Dora Kent suspension (in which
I was directly involved). More recently, I disputed the popular criticism
of cryonics and Alcor’s handling of the Ted Williams case on Crossfire. I
knew that I would be in the firing line, and wasn’t at all surprised that
the moronic hosts joined the other party in piling on. I have NEVER
hidden my views on anything, and have gone to great trouble to live
authentically. To be presented otherwise therefore deeply perturbs me,
though not as much as it would if I gave those claims any
credence.<br><br>
<br>
My specific responses to these statements:<br>
“You and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means.” <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>How do you
know whether -- if those folks *do* coercive means -- that we hang out
with them *happily*? Rather than with, say, discomfort, reluctance, out
of a sense of responsibility for blunting their effect, etc.? This also
seems like an unfair comment because I find it hard to believe that you,
or anyone who shares your perception, don’t “hang out with”, i.e. work
with, talk with, anyone who “favors coercive means.” We don’t have the
luxury of interacting only with those who we think have the right
approaches to everything. I find it more useful to engage, rather than
avoid, those whose policies I regard as mistaken, dangerous, or merely
sub-optimal.<br><br>
On the specific matter of the Geoethics seminar: You don’t know what I’m
going to say about the “global regulatory framework”. (Nor do I know what
the organizer means by that.) Why assume I will favor lots of government
regulation? Why characterize my participation in such terms?<br><br>
In reality, I will be arguing as a rule *against* regulation by
government agencies, and in favor of self-regulation and transparency.
Since some form of state regulation is likely, regardless of what we
would prefer, I will also be promoting use of the Proactionary Principle
to replace the precautionary principle. Success in this would greatly
reduce the likely harm of regulation.<br><br>
“Perhaps you and Max pretend, even to yourselves, that he never wrote
lovingly of anarchism”<br>
I do not pretend that, and never have, neither to others nor
to myself. On what basis do you suggest otherwise? Perhaps a statement by
someone other than me has led to that impression. If what you were saying
were true, why would I leave on my own website a reference to my 1990
“Deep Anarchy” article?
<<a href="http://www.maxmore.com/writing.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.maxmore.com/writing.htm</a>> Also, why would we leave in
the history of ExI the following text: “Extropy #7 focused on emergent
order, including Prof. Tom Bell's "Privately Produced Law", and
Max More's "Order Without Orderers""?
<<a href="http://www.extropy.org/history.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.extropy.org/history.htm</a>><br><br>
The only thing I can think of that might give you that impression was
part of what I said in the NeoFiles interview last year. I said: “Even
the earliest version of the Principles did not, in fact, “enclose a
strong belief in a libertarian pro-free enterprise politics.” I stand by
what I said there. You may be mixing up the views that appeared in
Extropy magazine (including my own views) with the essential ideas that
were expressed in the Extropian Principles.<br><br>
The Principles never did require a strong belief in libertarianism as a
particular political philosophy. They were all about removing limits and
barriers and enhancing capabilities. Version 1.0 of the Extropian
Principles listed the following four principles: Boundless Expansion,
Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, and Intelligent Technology. The
second of those principles is the relevant one:<br><br>
Self-Transformation: “Self-responsibility and self-determination are
incompatible with centralized control, with its stifling of the free
choices and spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons, and requires the
fewest restrictions compatible with maintaining the conditions of
freedom. Beyond agreement on these principles extropianism places no
limits on the paths one takes in the pursuit of
self-transformation.”<br><br>
Note the last clause. Now, clearly I was a libertarian when I wrote the
above. I believe (and STILL believe) that libertarianism is highly
compatible with that principle. At the time, I strongly doubted that any
non-libertarian (in a strict sense) view could fully accord with the
principle. Fortunately, I was thinking at a higher level of abstraction
than that of a particular viewpoint in political philosophy. My primary
concern was with removing barriers and enhancing capabilities, not with
promoting one view of exactly how to do that. Note the non-absolutist
nature of the clause, “the fewest restrictions compatible with
maintaining the conditions of freedom.” There is NO WAY that the
principle is compatible with big government, but it DOES NOT specify
libertarianism, whether anarchocapitalism or minarchism.<br><br>
By version 2.0, the Principles had already further disengaged from
appearing to endorse the specific libertarian view. The relevant new
principle was Spontaneous Order. <br>
“SPONTANEOUS ORDER - Promotion of decentralized, voluntaristic social
coordination mechanisms. Fostering of tolerance, diversity,
long-term planning, individual incentives and personal liberties.” <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The other
relevant new principle was Open Society: “Supporting social orders that
foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and experimentation.
Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring the rule of law and
decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and
exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static
utopia.”<br><br>
Part of the disagreement may be that, in your mind, “extropy”
*essentially* implied libertarianism, even anarchocapitalism, whereas in
my mind it essentially embodied the freedom and ability to change, to
improve, and to work freely with others for these goals. It implied
libertarianism only *contingently*. A close reading of the Principles
(what was said and what was not said) should make it clear that this was
how I thought then. It’s also how I think now.<br><br>
In the NeoFiles interview, immediately after the above quote, I went on
to say: “Granted, the early principles and the tone of our first
publications certainly favored a strongly libertarian approach.” How does
this square with your claim that, “I also know that Max now denies in
public that Extropianism ever had anything to do with libertarianism, let
alone anarchocapitalism”? Both my quoted words, and my explanation of why
I *no longer* called myself a libertarian, make it abundantly clear that
I *used to* call myself such.<br><br>
The same comments apply to statements that: “denying that he's changed
position is disingenuous”; “pretending you are something you aren't”; “I
don't try to pretend that the socialists I hung out with when I was in
college weren't socialists. I don't retroactively claim that, in fact,
they were something else entirely, and that our gatherings and
publications and such were something other than they were.”<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I would
add that your inferences will seem even less plausible when we put out
the announced book, “Best of the List.” We have every intention of
including some of the excellent discussions of economic and political
futures from the early days of the list, including clearly anarchistic
and libertarian discussions (quite possibly including my own
contributions). [Inclusion in the book is subject to the permission of
each author.]<br><br>
Perry, what are your intentions in making the claims that you’ve made?
Are you trying to damage my reputation? Simply set the facts straight?
Express your feelings? Something else?<br><br>
Does my account make sense to you? Does anything seem to be missing? If
so, what would it take to convince you that I am not deceptive or
inauthentic? You don’t have to like my (rather modest) change in views,
but it is important to me to resolve these conflicting
perceptions.<br><br>
Max<br><br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=2>_______________________________________________________<br>
Max More, Ph.D.<br>
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org<br>
<a href="http://www.maxmore.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.maxmore.com<br>
</a>Strategic Philosopher<br>
Chairman, Extropy Institute.
<a href="http://www.extropy.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.extropy.org</a> <more@extropy.org><br>
________________________________________________________________<br>
Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.:
<a href="http://www.manyworlds.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.manyworlds.com<br>
</a>--- Thought leadership in the innovation economy<br>
m.more@manyworlds.com<br>
_______________________________________________________</font></body>
</html>