[extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism

[Hal Finney]

I know this is a controversial topic, and this may be an unwelcome
contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate
to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say about
various political systems.  My reading of the principles of Open Society
and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a libertarian
approach to political life.

What is it that distinguishes libertarianism from other political systems?
As I use the term, I see it as that political system which minimizes the
use of coercion and compulsion and allows individuals the maximum freedom
to make their own decisions about their lives.  In a libertarian society,
people are free to make mutual volutary agreements about social and
economic matters.  For example, there is no minimum wage, because that
prevents people from agreeing to work for less than a centrally-defined
pay rate.  People are not taxed to pay for social insurance or welfare
systems, because again that interferes with people's freedom to make
mutual agreements as they see fit.

Now, I think we have a number of participants here who would object to
the formation of a society organized around these principles.  They would
view such a society, without the economic protections which have become
nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, as barbaric, primitive and unfair.
They would, in particular, consider it inconsistent with the principles
of Extropy.  It is this question which I want to address.

The current version of the Principles of Extropy at
http://extropy.org/principles.htm is in my opinion a well written document
that lays out an attractive philosophy which is highly appropriate for
our fast changing world.  Max More has done a great job at creating a
framework for dealing with issues in a dynamic and flexible way, while
holding to the concept of maximizing human potential which has always
been the core of Extropian beliefs.

Some readers have suggested that the Principles have been "watered down"
or altered to minimize a supposed excessive degree of libertarianism,
but I don't see that at all.  In my reading the Principles are in fact
strongly libertarian and amply demonstrate the commitment to freedom and
voluntary, non-coercive arrangements that are the core of libertarianism.

The Principles are long and I don't have room to take them apart sentence
by sentence.  I would invite those who disagree to look through the
Principles and find support for minimum wage restrictions and welfare
taxation, or other forms of social coercion and control.  Here are a
few quotes which demonstrate the libertarian flavor of the Principles,
followed by my comments.  From Open Society:

"The freedom of expression of an open society is best protected by a
social order characterized by voluntary relationships and exchanges."

This is essentially the defining principle of libertarianism.

"Within an open society individuals, through their voluntary consent,
may choose to submit themselves to more restrictive arrangements in
the form of clubs, private communities, or corporate entities. Open
societies allow more rigidly organized social structures to exist so
long as individuals are free to leave."

Free to leave is the operative word here.  Coercive government
restrictions cannot be escaped.

"Even where we find some of those choices mistaken or foolish, open
societies affirm the value of a system that allows all ideas to be tried
with the consent of those involved."

A good example would be someone who chooses to work for less than what we
think he should, or without the health and safety protections we think
he should demand.  The libertarian perspective endorsed here calls on
us to restrain our tendency to enforce limits on people who choose to
make what such foolish choices.

"Extropic thinking conflicts with the technocratic idea of coercive
central control by insular, self-proclaimed experts."

And yet that is exactly what we have with economic regulations of the
type I am discussing.  The minimum wage is set on the basis of some
economist's or sociologists ideas of what constitutes a just amount.
It is set via coercive central control, exactly what Max warns against.

"In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be
ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives."

A perfect capsule summary of libertarianism.  But let me quote the end
of this paragraph, which strikes a different tone:

"But for individuals and societies to flourish, liberty must come with
personal responsibility. The demand for freedom without responsibility
is an adolescent's demand for license."

I certainly do not read this as an endorsement of coercive, centralized
government control!  That would be utterly inconsistent with the points
which are made again and again throughout.  Rather, Max is observing that
philosophically, society will flourish when people behave responsibly.
He is not saying therefore that society should force people to behave
according to some centralized definition of responsible behavior.

Now for some quotes from the discussion of Self-Direction:

"Each individual should be free and responsible for deciding for
themselves in what ways to change or to stay the same."

While this does not directly address the economic issues above, it is
a further reiteration of the libertarian goal of non-coercion.

"It is extropic to take responsibility for the consequences of our
choices, refusing to blame others for the results of our own free
actions."

Again this is a fundamental principle of libertarianism.  When people
make mistakes, they take responsibility for them, they do not look to
a paternalistic government to fix the problem for them.

"Personal responsibility and self-determination are incompatible
with authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices and
spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons."

"Coercion of mature, sound minds outside the realm of self-protection,
whether for the purported 'good of the whole' or for the paternalistic
protection of the individual, is unacceptable."

Again, two very strong statements of libertarian principles.  The kinds
of economic regulations I listed above are imposed for precisely these
reasons, coercing people who are attempting to engage in voluntary
relationships either for the good of the whole (as in welfare state
taxation) or for paternalistic protection (as in the minimum wage).
These comments perfectly exemplify the libertarianism which is implicit
in these Principles.

"We act benevolently not by acting under obligation to sacrifice personal
interests; we embody benevolence when we have a disposition to help
others."

Taxation to help the poor is not a benevolent policy under this analysis.
Forcing people to act under obligation to sacrifice their personal
interests does not promote benevolence.  Only voluntary giving, the
personal disposition to help others, is true benevolence and a true
value to society.


I think these quotes are enough to make an initial case.  Please, read
the Principles yourself, especially these two, and see if you don't
see the libertarianism which is present in virtually every part of the
analysis and discussion.

I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the
Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is somehow
inconsistent with that philosophy.  To me, the philosophy of non-coercion
is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the foundations of Extropian
thinking that it is hard to imagine how people could see it otherwise.

Hal Finney