[ExI] Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty

[Samantha Atkins]

Lee Corbin wrote:
> Amara writes
>
>   
>> After following a very random thought today, I checked in on the ISIL
>> website news, and encountered this simple, charming animation "Introduction
>> to the Philosophy of Liberty", written by, yes, the same Ken Schoolland.
>>
>> http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html
>> Ten minutes Flash Animation.
>>
>> Many basic principles, such as self-ownershop, as seen in this animation,
>> are at the root of transhumanist thought. I appreciated how they
>> carefully constructed the philosophical principles, building block by
>> building block (as they should ... :-) ).
>>     
>
> Well, I started to watch that with an anticipation of disappointment, because
> I have become increasingly disillusioned by the hyper-individualist ethos of
> not only many of those around me, but to which in some measure I myself
> had at various times succumbed.
>
> But I was greatly reassured.  Just as you said, it carefully laid the foundations
> of human liberty, and emphasized that our lives are our *own*, and no one
> else's. It went on to explain how our time and the products of time (our
> privately created property) are also our own, and cannot be taken from us
> by force without also taking our liberty.
>
> Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the way through, I began to notice that
> something very important was missing.  Nothing whatsoever was being said
> about the Rule of Law.  Yes, private property was emphasized, and rightly
> so.  But the other equally important foundation of progress and civilization
> was not mentioned EVEN ONCE in the ten minute show.
>
> Nothing at all was said or implied about just how obedience to democratically
> enacted laws is to be achieved!  

Rational law is not the same as "democratically enacted law".  The 
latter can be and often are extremely deleterious and anti-liberty.  
Take the democratically enacted laws declaring war on some drugs as a 
case in point.    In ten minutes it probably would not be possible to 
say what liberty consistent law would be like in much detail much less 
how such laws are to be enforced. You cannot meaningfully conflate the 
vast majority of "law breakers" as the law is today with murderers and 
thieves.

Anti-anarchist arguments would need a lot cleaner and more careful 
development than the swipe presented here.   There is nothing in not 
initiating force that say a gang initiating force should not be 
forcefully stopped.    That their are specialist for counteracting the 
initiation of force changes things not at all.

- samantha