[extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated

[Mike Lorrey]

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Don't know what state or country you live in. Last time I checked,
> the
> > 14th Amendment was clearly interpreted by SCOTUS as saying that you
> own
> > yourself: no slavery, peony, or indenturement allowed. It is a well
> > settled matter of probate law that the deceased's wishes about
> disposal
> > of their body are paramount, and if the deceased does not
> explicitly
> > say so, their next of kin, NOT the state, has the right to dispose
> of
> > the body. [snip].
> 
> Mike, these are important points -- points which should be well
> documented in public forums, easily available.  That means
> some combination of something like a google search as well
> as a law database search.  The trick would be to get such
> information near the top of the list in both forums.

So I suppose we need to make the public as aware of Hale v Henkel (201
US 43 (1905)) as they are of Roe v Wade and Miranda, specifically: "The
individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is
entitled to carry on his own private business in his own way. His power
to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or his neighbors
to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far
as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes  no such duty to the State,
since he receives nothing there-from, beyond the protection of his life
and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land
long antecedent to the organization of the State... He owes nothing to
the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

This citation should be in the legal ammo box of any cryonicist.

> 
> It doesn't do us a lot of good if only a very limited number
> of people are aware of the knowledge base.  One has to,
> by "self-interest" generated reasons force the knowledge
> into the public awareness.
> 
> I tend to support the free-state concept.  But at the same time
> I am realistic enough to recognize that the masses can easily
> crush a free-state or a free-island until such time that
> technology might make that extremely difficult.  If that is
> an accurate foreview then you are attempting to solve a
> political problem before you have the technological means
> to accomplish your goals.

Well, I'm not sure what technological means you are speaking of. As it
is, technological development requires a nurturing political
environment to achieve anything lasting. Places like California seem to
me to be on the verge of becoming banana republics, what with natural
disasters, political instability, excessive public spending and debt,
fasco-socialist tendencies and significant infrastructure reliability
problems. Don't know if it's a result of stalling out short of the
singularity or what, but a polity trending more toward real political
liberty for the individual, free of mobocracy, seems to fit the bill
for a better place to be if you are going to be protecting your ass-ets
in a post-mortem scenario.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                                    - Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree