[extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law

[Russell Wallace]

On 2/12/06, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> Russell Wallace wrote:
>
> > Oppose international law, the United Nations and anything that
> > reduces world political disunity.
>
> I don't doubt your sincerity here, nor that your views are likely to
> be shared by some other posters, but I do wonder if, or how, you
> or anyone else would reconcile such a stance with any philosophy
> of extropy. [I took another look at the principles of extropy around
> the open society section].
>

Extropy is about progress, which depends on the existence of multiple
polities competing with each other. Consider why we're speaking English
instead of Chinese right now. China under the Ming dynasty was more advanced
than Europe - but Europe had the priceless gift of political disunity. China
did not, so progress could be and therefore was shut down with the stroke of
a pen. Look at Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate - there was no possibility
of progress until Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay and brought outside
influence to bear. But unless we really are being watched by little green
men in flying saucers, Earth has no outside influence to rescue us; if we
lose political disunity, we lose our chance - perhaps our only chance.

I wonder what theory of the origin and purpose of law in society,
> if any, you could currently hold.
>

The purpose of law is to protect people from force and fraud. The problem is
that the law itself involves the use of force, so having been established,
the problem then becomes that of protecting people from its excesses. As
George Washington remarked: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;
it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
There has to be an escape route.

Your above statement doesn't seem to be a statement that could
> be made by someone that had considered the notion of the social
> contract.  Come to think of it I'm not sure I picked up my
> understanding from the original inventers of the social contract
> writers either.
>

Contracts are voluntary things. I'm only entitled to take your money if you
agree to give it to me in return for goods or services. If I stick a gun in
your face and demand your wallet, I can't reasonably be said to be acting
under a contract. Similarly, the law can only reasonably be said to be a
form of contract if adherence to it is voluntary - and the only way for it
to be voluntary is for there to be an escape route. Right now if you don't
like the law of your country you can leave. If a single law covers the whole
Earth, where will you take refuge?

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/bb3277b1/attachment.html>