[extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Samantha Atkins]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:44:39 -0000
"Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:


> > 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?
> 

Not *any* but laws that are odds with the arguable very basic premises of the society are far game for circumvention by whatever means.  Laws that cause self-immolation if obeyed are a case in point.  Democracy is not a higher value than life itself or a higher value than human rights or freedom.   Legislators can err and err terribly.  Just because they arrived at their error by democratic means does not make it less erroneous or more rational to go along with the error.

> 
> > 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).
> 

This is patently false.  Freedom of speech but not freedom to act against an erroneous and evil law is no freedom at all.  Leave?  That is only practical in the first instance if there is somewhere else better to go to.  And why should one leave one's home because of the error of merely human legislators?

- s