[extropy-chat] Questioning The Consensus

[Mike Lorrey]

Dirk,
From: http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/principia/judicial/index.html
"The origin of Rights in human nature is a more plausible argument. For
example, it can be argued that the 'Right of self defence' is rooted in
and derived from innate instincts for self preservation. However, it
does require some convoluted and unconvincing reasoning to extrapolate
that to other Rights such as the 'Right to vote'. It is also not much
of a foundation if one has the power to alter Human nature at its
genetic source, which will soon be an available technology. Which
leaves Rights as a social construct - but what kind of construct?"

The "right to vote" is a part and parcel of the right to choose, a
result of every individual posessing free will.

Having the power to alter human nature, according to your charter,
would be illegal and unacceptable, so you cannot have your cake and eat
it. You cannot argue away human nature as the source of rights with
claims that technology is hand hand to alter that nature if your party
intends to prevent such technology from being applied.

Furthermore, self modification is an inherent part of self-ownership.
If you cannot alter your own nature, then you are a slave to that which
prevents you from doing so.

Secondly, do you really think that altering of human beings would go so
far as to change the basic features of human sentience? Given that the
goal of your alleged claim to transhumanism is to improve humans, to
advance human capabilities, it follows that a more capable human would
have MORE rights. Nor is this out of line with human development. Once
humans could not speak, and therefore had no right to free speech. Once
human predecessors had no weapons technology, and had no right to bear
arms.

As we become more abled, we gain greater liberty. As humans are
differently abled, they are differently free. A quadrepelegic is not
free to walk until s/he makes the investment in regaining that ability,
but the quadrepelegic is free to travel by other means: by wheelchair,
for example. A person capable of leading a nation responsibly is able
to handle the liberty of controlling massive destructive capabilities,
like nuclear weapons.

Your "Consensus" is a rather minor form of fascism that grants liberty
as privilege issued by the whim of government and not as ability gained
via nature of being born or nurture of being raised as a free citizen.

No government you imagine can prevent becoming a tyranny because you
have proposed no means of embedding checks on abuse of power or of
limiting the potential for majoritarian tyranny. Contracts mean nothing
when the people who sign them do not believe they posess that which
they are negotiating as an inherent property of their being. When
anything can be negotiated, then slavery is only one vote away.



=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/