[extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality


> >
> > So it is legitimate to use force to
> > overthrow any law you don't agree with
> > in a democratic society?
>
> Note:  I did not say all laws were unjust or un-libertarian.  However,
> the imposition of legislation is usually the initiation of force.  In
> such cases, it is legitimate, by libertarian standards, to retaliate.
> Whether it's prudent is another matter.
>
> To answer your question more directly -- and I'll assume you mean
> "disobey" where you write "overthrow"; please let me know if that
> differs from your intended meaning -- it depends on the law in question.

It does.
Disobedience, or ignoring a law is one thing.
The article compares denial of immortality treatment to murder.
It's only a very short step from that to 'killing in self defence'.

> In the context of this debate, the particular laws you were talking
> about -- and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you -- would be ones
> aimed at prohibiting life extension technology.  I assumed you meant
> something like parliament outlawing conventional supplements.  In that
> case, I see no reason to obey the law.  Merely that one group of people
> decided for all people that they can or cannot use a certain substance
> to me is unjust and constitutes the initiation of force.

It may be far more than simply denying what already exists. It may be
denying the possibility of ever developing the technology in the first
place.
Which would be the next logical justification for 'self defence' to some.

>
> >> 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.

> Then you appear to be a democratic absolutist.  You see democracy as
> legitimizing anything, right?  As long as one can line up enough votes,
> you seem to be saying, the government can do what it will.

Pretty much so.
As soon as people view their cause as the exception it's a recipe for war.

> >> 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).

> leaders...)  What do you mean by "the ability to leave"?  Would that
> include secession?  By that I mean the ability to no longer be under the

In the political context, I'd say yes.

> juridiction of a particular government -- not leaving the territory
> itself.  If you agree with this, then you should see the ultimate end
> state would be anarchy, since any minority or individual would be
> allowed to break away from a democracy.

And any democracy would be free to boycott and embargo the new state until
it was starved into submission (unless it was truly viable). Better make
sure they have some coastline or a friendly neighbour. Which rules out my
home town seceding.
Viability would be the major criterion.

> If you don't mean that [secession], then I think what you advocating
> would be oppressive.  After all, this would be forcing people to leave
> their homes because a government will otherwise trample them.  In the
> context of today's world, since there are basically only democracies of
> different shades and the planet is pretty much carved up by them, where
> would one go?  That would be like telling someone in prison they can
> have their choice of cell blocks.

That's the way the world is.
Your alternative is simply offering them the right to start a war in their
own democracy.

Dirk

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