[extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality


> On Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:13 PM Dirk Bruere dirk at neopax.com wrote:
> > Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
> > Does it mean speaking against?
> > Speaking against pursuasively?
> > Legislating against in a democracy?
> > If any of the above you are talking about
> > justifying terrorism and oppression.
>
> I haven't read Mark's essay, but just from reading this thread, I fear
> some might interpret it very broadly to mean even such things as not
> subsidizing other people's life extension program.  For strict
> egalitarians, this might mean my failure to fund everyone else's life
> extension program constitutes my "deny[ing them] access to radical life
> extension technology."
>
> I would hope that's not what Mark intended, but I can imagine others
> taking the argument in that direction.
>
> However, I disagree with you [Dirk] here about the last instance.
> Legislating against something usually means initiating force.  Once a
> person or a group has initiated force, retaliating against such is not
> "terrorism and oppression" per se, but a just response -- depending on
> it being justly carried out.

So it is legitimate to use force to overthrow any law you don't agree with
in a democratic society?

> I mean here that if the government of, say, Ruritania outlaws
> supplements, it is not wrong for Ruritanian life extensionists to
> disobey that law.  However, it would be wrong to, say, bomb Ruritania's
> whole population.  Specific acts against Ruritanian legislators and law
> enforcement agents, though, might not be un-libertarian and would have
> to measured against their justness and their likely consequences.
>
> To drive this point home, imagine CPR were outlawed in Ruritania.  Would
> not the Ruritanian government be the one using "terrorism and
> oppression" in this case against people needing CPR, their relatives,

No.

> their friends, EMTs, etc.?  Or is any act by a democratic government
> okay?

In general, yes, provided one is allowed freedom of speech (as well as the
ability to leave).

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org