[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 Mike Lorrey

>What people like you resent is that I didn't donate that time in a way
and for a purpose that the state dictates, at the barrel of a gun.
-----------------------------------------

No No NO! I do not advocate communism. But speaking of "the barrel of a
gun", I fear such things as the NRA...

As an aside, I recently listened to a monk who one considered explored
communism/socialism. He attended one of those meetings decades ago in
England during Vanessa Redgrave's prime activist period. After she spoke, he
stood up and said "presumably, to achieve your goals, you must change the
mindset of everyone who does not agree with you. But you cannot ever do
this. Therefore, the only other answer is to kill them. And who is going to
do that? You, Vanessa? Everyone here in this building?" - silence.....

As another aside, Bush says "you are either with us, or against us"  - seems
to me that was about bringing the entire world to heel.

I think you really were triggered by my use of marxist terminologies to
describe the huge and widening gap between the mega rich and everyone else.

The compassion I speak of is not individual, either. I'm talking about
collective compassion built into the philosophical/political/economic
construct.
Currently, this doesn't exist in any meaningful way as far as I can tell, in
ANY system except some of the remaining tribal communities, as all have been
usurped in one way or another.  
When I speak of compassion, I see it as a "verb" in the sense that true
compassion requires an activity reflecting the empathy/sympathy. 

But yes, I am guilty in this respect of one thing - when corporations and/or
individuals amass HUGE fortunes, there are always sources for those
fortunes. Winners, losers. It is not an endless, infinite bucket of
money/resources. I ask "how much is enough?" Should there be requirements to
return such wealth beyond a certain point? 
Should the current checks and balances be restructured from the top down,
philosophically, economically, politically?
Will emerging technologies make it easier to implement such restructuring,
particularly with respect to renewal of resources?

One of the reasons I posted the Naomi Klein article was that it described
the carve up of another country's resources "at the barrel of a gun" by
corporate entities who seem to be very good examples of my terminology
"rampant, unchecked capitalism" of which war profiteering is surely the
ugliest example.

-----------------------------------------------

>I want to help those less well off in this world, but I want it done
ethically, without coersion, and in the way that I deem proper.

--------------------------------

I like that sentence a lot, but I'm not sure about the last bit....

---------------------------------- 
> 
> 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.

The idea that one can have freedom and self-ownership without having
the right to own and reinvest the fruits of one's labor, and the
profits from that investment, is laughable, erroneous, and truly
irrational.

-------------------------------------

I agree. But I am not an "absolutist". At what cost? What is the
responsibility towards the inevitable losers? Should economic and political
power be attached to wealth?
Should unfeeling, cynical exploitation of the ignorant or weak be fair game?
Should exploitation of limited resources be fair game? Is war "fair game"? 

-------------------------------------


> 
> 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?  

The definition of a Libertarian is a person who believes that it is
wrong to initiate force against another individual for any reason. That
is all.

This includes initiating force against others in order to steal their
property to pay for your 'egalitarianism'. Economic equality and
Liberty do not mix.

----------------------------------
Presumably, that is _your_ definition, as there are many others. And when a
libertarian observes another entity "initiating force" against a third
party, does the libertarian then take the initiative, or stand by and allow
it to occur? When, if ever, is intervention supported? How does this work on
a micro and macro level? (i.e. individual/society, individual
property/town/city/state/country/global)
 
I did not mention force against others to pay for egalitarian outcomes, nor
do I advocate this.
Rather, my fervent hope is that technology makes it _easier_ (and therefore
desirable) to obtain more egalitarian outcomes.
Your final sentence seems to imply such a hope is futile.
Do you reject the notion that a more egalitarian world would be a better
place to live in, if a way could be found to arrive closer to a mix of
equality and liberty?

Sean