[extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages

[Brett Paatsch]

Keith Henson wrote:

> At 10:51 AM 2/12/2006 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>In my considered opinion, the absolute highest extropian
>>principle must be open society underpinned by the rule
>>of law - and that means global law. That means developing
>>the law. Refining the law and upholding the law. Law with
>>checks and balances and with no one excluded from its
>>protection or excluded from the obligation to uphold the
>>law whilst residing on planet earth.
>
> While I agree with the sentiments, let me point out two problems.
>
> Law requires rationality.

Yes, it does in that unreasonable creatures could not produce
law. But it does not require that everyone be rational all the time,
rather good law (which should always be as few as practicable
and open for consideration of being removed) requires only
that (in democracies say) most of the people can be rational
on some very important things some very small amount of the
time. Then, and only then, can a few more than average rational
types keep the whole global system working as a system for
maximum potential freedom.  A good legal superstructure
which guaranteed a right not to be murdered anywhere
without the murderer being punished would be a law that
would make sense to almost everyone almost everywhere
almost all of the time. The problem is getting such a law into
place in the first place. Civilization arises in some places
first.

 > In the memetic ecosystem on the run up to war, rationality
> is darn near  shut off.  [*] This has to do with the way populations
> were controlled by wars  in the stone age.  I mean going out
> to try to kill all the males in the next tribe with rocks is about
>  a 50/50 risk of getting killed yourself.

[*] Begs the question "shut off" how?  Or what is it that is shut
off?  Surely not reasoning by eveyone entirely all of the relevant
time. Some are inciting the war and they may be doing so for
rational short term purposes.

> That's *not* rational from you own view even if you genes
> have built you to find it is a good idea (because your death
> may allow others with your genes to live on instead of dying).

Genes, no single gene, could find war to be a good idea. Single
genes can't produce phenomena so complex as ideas about
'war'. To go to 'war' in groups, intentionally one must have a
word for 'war' which requires language. Once one has language
one is into memes not genes. One is into social creatures with
social cultures.

> Second is a personal thing about corrupted legal systems to enforce
> laws.  I am a fugitive from a cult that enlisted the DA and the courts.  I
> can go into more detail if you want, but law has a long way to go before I
> will trust it.

Your objection is a reasonable one from your standpoint. So are
many of the objections against particular laws from many libertarian
standpoints. In my life I have personally been adversely affected
by numerous stupid laws enacted carte blanche fashion aimed at
preventing other problems not aimed at impeding my freedoms at
all.

It is also reasonable for the likes of Henry Thoreau I think from
memory to advocate civil disobedience which sometimes can
involve breaking minor laws as part of a campaign to bring attention
to problems with major laws.

i.e. Its permissible (perhaps ?) to jay walk across a city street in
a crowd of protesters that are protesting an imminent decision to
execute someone that the courts have ordered erroneously be
killed.

The *hierarchy* of law has to be gotten right. No one can ever
*rationally* been expected to uphold law or feel duty bound to
respect law that places them in an outlaw category through no
fault of their own.

The problem I have with laws as they currently exist is that some
are above the law and some are outside the law. It is impossible
to order civilizations without law with things like humans being the
agents in those societies so I see global government as inevitable
and opposition to global government (in principle not practice)
as a bit childish or in self-serving (I'm alright Jack, I'm a US
citizen or an Aussie or a Brit and my arse is covered so lets
go screw the others who don't enjoy the protections of law.

An Australian example might be the Australian Wheat Board
undermining the UN Iraqi Oil-for-food arrangements by paying
Saddam's regime a kickback.  )

Brett Paatsch