[extropy-chat] Freedom (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?)

[A B]

Hi Lee,
   
  Sorry for the delay in response, I was super-busy this weekend.
   
  Lee writes:
  "Well, THAT'S NOT THE REASON! I suppose where "bad" or
"undesirable" did have a clear, objective definition,
then you'd be in favor of outlawing everything that
was provably harmful.

Sigh."
   
  This is hard to address since the notion is completely hypothetical. If this "objective" "bad" included drinking vodka on Sundays, then no, I don't favor outlawing everything that is "objectively" bad. I favor outlawing the very specific "freedom" of one conscious being to intentionally inflict harm or death on another conscious being.
   
  Best Wishes,
   
  Jeffrey Herrlich
   

  Lee Corbin <lcorbin at tsoft.com> wrote:
  Jeffrey H. writes

> Lee:
> > "Surely you don't believe that everything that is bad
> > should be outlawed. Or do you?"

> No, absolutely not! I realize that "bad" doesn't have an
> objective definition.

Well, THAT'S NOT THE REASON! I suppose where "bad" or
"undesirable" did have a clear, objective definition,
then you'd be in favor of outlawing everything that
was provably harmful.

Sigh. 

This is going to be a long discussion, I am afraid.

The problem is not that it's not *objective* what is
deleterious, the problem is what truly lies behind making 
the simple words "making it illegal". Hint: visualize
force being used on some people by other people.

> I think that anyone should be able to do *anything* with
> their own bodies, minds, and non-sentient property - and
> when I say *anything*, I mean *ANYTHING* :-) The only
> line I draw is murdering or torturing (or intentionally
> bringing harm to) other *conscious* beings.

The key horror in what you write here is the little phrase
in your first paragraph "should be able". It is the 
*enforcement* lying behind this phrase that is scary.

I fear you have an unconscious image of some huge government
agency with absolute power that acts to stop what one "shouldn't
be able" to do (including ancestor simulations), but does permit
what one "should be able" to do. This is the whole very, very
problematic part.

Avoiding tyranny can only be done by somehow (rather miraculously)
placing limits on what this agency from the outside can do. Its
power and its knowledge must be kept to an absolute minimum, so
long as the survival of everything is not at stake. More about
this in a moment.

> Lee, I'm a little bit confused by your reference to "Rule of
> Law". Could you elaborate for me on exactly what you are
> referring to? I can't really determine whether you mean that
> standard Laws are "good" or "bad", so I can't yet really
> comment on this section of your post.

I'll answer this, as well as your other questions, other posts.

Right now, I'll put the ball back in your court: if there is
an outside agency that can prevent me from running ancestor
simulations on my own privately purchased equipment, why 
wouldn't it have the power to make me conform to whatever
it wants? Think Committee of Public Safety. If it is to
be able to "decide" whether Samantha's characters in her
video games rise to the level of sentient beings, then it
must know about almost infinitely many details about her
games. The key question is, "Is this really, *absolutely*
necessary, or have you created a monster".

(Alas I don't think that there is a simple answer to this,
but go ahead and take a swing at it anyway.)

Lee

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


			
---------------------------------
Sneak preview the  all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060530/995be987/attachment.html>