[extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Samantha Atkins]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:46:40 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > So, you are dying of a disease. I use the law to prevent you
> > from obtaining the treatment you need to live. You WILL die, 
> > if you don't get this treatment. Are you justified in using 
> > ANY means to prevent my actions or not?
> 
> I will obtain treatment for myself even if it is illegal.  No action against
> the luddites who brought about the law is necessary.
> 
> > Others have already died from my actions, so it is
> > demonstrably true that you will die as well if I am not 
> > stopped. At what point is any action against me acceptable in 
> > defense of your life? Why is this not plain and simple and 
> > morally acceptable self defense on your part?
> 
> Self defense is hiding from the authorities, getting treatment anyway,
> lobbying to get the law changed, etc.  Killing the person who championed the
> law won't change the law.  Killing congress members until I get my way is
> called terrorism and probably won't get me justice.  Killing the police
> person coming to get me won't lessen the resources allocated to capture me.
> I really don't see how killing people trying to enforce this law helps me
> get my treatment in any way.  This is a poor example of having to choose the
> lesser of two evils, because my goal is not directly served by harming
> anyone.

Generally I would agree.  However, I sometimes think that part of the reason the first Prohibition failed was that it was opposed not only in genteel ways but even up to violence against its enforcement.   It also helped that it was so near-universally violated.   The results were often not pretty but the madness was rescinded.  Government didn't learn a durn thing except to remove as much of the citizen firepower as possible apparently.   

> 
> > Self defense is not evil. Why is this not self defense?
> 
> People with guns often confuse killing someone with self-defense.  Killing
> is an offensive act.  It only protects you if you have a lone assailant and
> you can wipe out the entire opposing team in one shot.  I do not believe
> killing a police officer, congress member, or luddite will help.  You will
> make them a martyr, and more will join their cause to fight you.  I see no
> net gain, only net losses, in using violence under this scenario.  That is
> why I am opposed, not for mere political reasons, but for more pragmatic
> reasons that I don't think this "solution" solves anything.
>

I own guns but I don't confuse self-defense with killing someone.  I also don't confuse killing someone in true self-defense with an offensive act.   Are you actually saying that if someone comes in my home with the intent to kill me and takes actions to that end that if I shoot the perp I have committed an offensive act?   

It isn't time to shoot the bastards as long as there is a chance for freedom to win or to live despite them reasonably well.  But I don't agree there is never such a time.  I agree that this isn't that time.
 
- samantha