[extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning...

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Very interesting!
The immediate question that comes to my mind is that, suppose you and
I register a contract with ICA and accept that it will be regulated by
the CEP, then we have a disagreement, resort to their arbitrations
services, and they decide that I have to pay you 1000 bucks, and I
don't want to pay, how do you get your money?
I just love the idea, but how does it work in practice???
G.

On 9/11/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would suggest folks go over ICA's Common Economic Protocol that I
> linked to previously. Based on the concept that Neal Stephenson used in
> his novel The Diamond Age, it is a consensual international legal code
> of personal and property rights for a world of individualists,
> distributed polities, corporate states, sovereign individuals, and
> consensual phyles.
> 
> --- Jack Parkinson <isthatyoujack at icqmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Brett Paatsch wrote >Are you suggesting a tranhumanist bill of
> > rights?  I think there is some
> > >merit in such a suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first
> > draft
> > >of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and maybe giving
> > feedback.
> >
> > What I really had in mind was not actually a transhuman bill of
> > rights - but a sort of rubric if you will - couched in
> > philosophic/moral rather than procedural terms. I have an inherent
> > distrust of codified 'law' - we have way too much of it and I have
> > seen estimates that statute law has burgeoned in some western nations
> > by 200% or more in the last two generations or so.
> >
> > At present we employ vast numbers of people to formulate written
> > legislation and then yet greater numbers to pick holes in the laws,
> > circumvent them, evade them or otherwise invalidate them. If all that
> > vast repository of law was abolished overnight - I wonder - would it
> > really matter? Probably not IF you could still go to court, plead
> > your case, and be judged by good people in your society on the basis
> > of what is right and wrong...
> >
> > This in essence is the argument for common law. It is flexible and
> > reflects current mores and attitudes, England got by for centuries on
> > it. Codification and statutes are well-meaning but too often fail in
> > delivering genuine justice: In the beginning was the word, then the
> > word was twisted...
> >
> > The letter of the law is not the same as it's spirit (which allows no
> > loopholes and technical acquittals of wrongdoers).
> >
> > Perhaps it should also be said that legislation is used at least as
> > much to oppress as it is to protect....
> >
> > >> A good first step might be to make politicians personally
> > >> accountable for their errors...
> >
> > >That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first step that is not
> > >operationalisable.  Holding all politicians as a class accountable
> > for
> > >their collective errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or
> > indeed
> > >any one person. Because they don't operate as a class. They take
> > >individual oaths of office and to the extent that they can
> > individually
> > >avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, then of course
> > >they will (on average) try to do just that.
> >
> > It should not be too difficult - one simple practice would do it:
> > every executive decision/promise has an executive sponsor who signs
> > off on the order/pledge and takes full responsibility for it. No
> > sponsor = no order/pledge, no matter how strong the wording it -
> > becomes just a suggestion/hope... A committee need not be jointly
> > responsible - but they must have one member who is prepared to 'carry
> > the can' for the rest. Where multiple members DO sign, retribution is
> > not mitigated by membership of the group - they are jointly and
> > severally liable. The same system would work as well for corporations
> > as for politicians.
> > No more limited liability! no more decoupling of action from adverse
> > consequence! We might expect a lot less frivolity, self-serving
> > decision-making and empty promises if such a system were in place...
> > Jack
> > > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Yahoo! for Good
> Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>