[extropy-chat] Bush wants another $75 billion for wars

[Sean Diggins]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney"
Samantha Atkins writes:
> I am out of belief that anyone has any good reason to keep this 
> monstrously incompetent moron in office.

So how do you explain to yourself why about 50% of Americans do want
to keep Bush in office?  Do you think they are all wicked people?

How seriously do you consider the possibility that they might be right
and you wrong?  Is that completely out of the question for you?

I am interested in understanding how people cling so hard to beliefs in
the face of evidence of widespread disagreement, which would suggest
that in fact the issues (in this case, which candidate would make a
better president) are quite uncertain.
-------------------------------------

I am interested in how many members of this list are Libertarians (emphasis
on capital L) and, of those, how many consider themselves to be "hard core,
no matter what" (ie True Believers).

I have a hard time coming to terms with the conflict between libertarian
philosophy and issues such as egalitarianism, particularly regarding whether
the human race collectively has a duty of care to its members. Yes, I
understand the difference between positive and negative rights, but a
"right" is different to the desirability and hope for movement towards
egalitarian outcomes.  Presumably, despite being opposed to anarchism,
contemporary libertarians do not share the complete lack of compassion for
others which I (probably mistakenly) identified within some of Mike Lorrey's
recent posts.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the term "libertarian" is used within this
list. There seems to be many definitions, from libertarian socialism to
anarchic definitions to US liberalism, depending on whether one has a US
perspective or European.

I like the way this page hows the confusion (and hence, my need to know more
about the views of the libertarians within this email list) 

http://www.free-definition.com/Libertarianism.html

I would have thought that a more egalitarian world would be a desirable
outcome post-singularity. Am I wrong or misguided to hope for this? If this
is a desirable outcome, what is the hope or motivation to achieve such an
outcome without acceptance of a global "duty of care"? Surely, egalitarian
outcomes should apply to all, not just those in countries wealthy enough to
afford the benefits of new technologies?  

For the record, despite Mike's assumptions to the contrary. I am not a
communist. I actually support capitalism. What I do not support is what I
call "rampant, unchecked capitalism" where there are no clearly functioning
constraints on massive abuses of the system. Any system can be destroyed by
those who persist in subverting the nature of the system to suit their own
purposes. Clearly, the current capitalist systems are in a cancerous state,
or am I wrong? Am I the only person on this list who feels we are operating
within dangerous economic, social and environmental problems across the
globe, with no one taking responsibility for decisions which affect all of
us being made by a small section of society, with a history of propagating
cynical outcomes which may or may not include massive tragedy? (ie the
ruling classes, for want of a better terminology)     

Why bring this up within this thread? Perhaps because I do not believe in
blind faith in ANYTHING and am yet to see a belief, philosophical stance or
political/economic system which does not contain flaws, paradoxes or
"tautological themes".

In this respect, it is worth noting that many of Bush's constituency still
believe in The Rapture (including Bush himself AFAIK...) and are all very
excited at the prospect of "End Times being upon us soon". 

www.raptureready.com

www.raptureready.com/rap2.html

www.rr-bb.com/


The third link above is easily the busiest bulletin board I have ever seen
on the web, by several orders of magnitude. A cursory read through the posts
gives the reader a good idea of Bush's prime constituency beyond the large
corporate and small business demographics. 

Sean