[extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> At 07:18 AM 9/8/2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> I'll reply to Hal's lengthy and thoughtful post later today.
> 
> 
> >The criticism is generally regarding a softening of terms and mealy
> >mouthing. Getting rid of 'dynamic optimism' for 'pragmatic
> optimism',
> >and the like.
> 
> Explain how "pragmatic" is more mealy than "dynamic". I made the 
> change (with encouragement from others who commented) precisely 
> because it was thought that "dynamic" sounded New Agey and vague. 
> "Pragmatic" isn't as *fun* as "dynamic", but how is it more mealy?

Because it bows and surrenders to folks of limited vision and who have
a tendency toward armchair do-nothingism. Dynamic optimism expects them
to take action, to be proactive, to make the future they wish to see.
Pragmatic optimism means they can sit around and yak about it ad
nauseum until the issue isn't of consequence anymore, or it is too late
to do anything effective about it. It is a neutering.

> >The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by
> >ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting
> >corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not
> hold
> >to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian
> >leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies
> (such
> >as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations
> >controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela).
> 
> This is a confused paragraph. By saying "policies endorsed by ExI or 
> advocated by other transhumanist groups", you're not saying anything 
> useful. What if I said "Murders committed by Mike Lorrey or other 
> males called "Mike"? The issue is whether the Principles of Extropy 
> have been "watered down" (whatever that means), not what other groups
> do. ExI has never supported "corporate welfare subsidies for stem 
> cell research", so don't suggest otherwise, then try to weasel out of
> it by saying "I only said ExI OR other groups."

Okay, here is a point blank question: is ExI for or against President
Bush's ban on federal funding of stem cell research beyond the limited
number of cell lines he recognised in 2001?

So far as I've been able to tell, I'm the only person here who backs
Bush's stand, and I do so for solid libertarian reasons that also hew
closest to the extropian principles. Forcing someone at gun point to
pay for something they are morally opposed to, particularly if it has
no bearing on their personal safety or risk, is against the extropian
principles.

Where does ExI stand on this issue, and if it opposes Bush's policy,
how can it justify it in light of its own principles against coersion?
 
> >Furthermore, the claim to hold to the principles, which as you amply
> >demonstrated are quite plainly libertarian in meaning and intent,
> which
> >is contradicted by the weasle word denial of Extropy being
> libertarian
> >in a mealy mouthed attempt to appeal to a broader base of membership
> >among those with an aversion to liberty, is a 'watering down' that
> is
> >semantically no different from the Klan claiming it is no longer
> >racist, or various socialist parties claiming they are no longer
> >pro-communist.
> 
> It's hard to know how to respond when people like you thick-headed 
> repeat the same stuff, failing to respond to my previous detailed 
> explanations (as in the NeoFiles interview: 
> http://www.life-enhancement.com/NeoFiles/default.asp?ID=39). Clearly 
> the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian 
> view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable 
> viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are 
> *restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic
> view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the
> principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress.

I've run into this very problem with public questions about the stance
of the FSP, which claims to be 'non-partisan' and is only interested in
migrating people. The FSP only says that its principle is most
compatible with libertarianism, but refuses to take a stand on anything
for fear of limiting its potential member base.

The public doesn't buy it, they can tell you are trying to snow them,
and they want to know where you actually stand. There is a difference
between being dogmatic and being principled. Dogma is rote theology of
philosophy. Principled means applying a consistent principle to
changing circumstances. It would be dogmatically extropian to insist
upon stem cell research by any means necessary. It is principled to
apply all the extropian principles, including the one against coersion,
in limiting how one conducts and/or funds such research.

> As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with 
> socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict 
> libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to 
> libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways 
> described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* 
> mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it 
> might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It 
> *might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as 
> might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with 
> extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever).

I am satisfied that the principle that allows for coercive
organizations to exist so long as membership is voluntary covers this,
but your stance here does not cover the right of individuals, under the
principles, to not belong to coercive organizations, to not have their
funds taken at gunpoint for research they don't like, or to engage in
research that voluntary coercive organizations oppose. However,
libertarian principles allow for such organizations to exist within a
greater libertarian societal plenum under the same circumstances as the
extropian principles do. Retorting that the principles are not
libertarian is like saying, "The sky is not blue (because surveys show
that most people don't like blue), it is azure."

> 
> >You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe,
> >stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists,
> >socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with
> >their entryist tactics.
> 
> I've already replied to this kind of slanderous rubbish when Perry 
> Metzger blew a gasket. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Perry takes a distinctly intolerant view toward libertarians tolerating
POVs that are not absolutist bunkertarian do-it-now-or-I'm-going-home
anarcho-capitalist. I differ distinctly from his view in that regard,
but do not waver in insisting that ExI hold to its own principles, no
matter what label it chooses to disguise them under for PR purposes.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


	
		
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/