[ExI] Regarding Wickedness

[David Lubkin]

Lee wrote:

>As to when we should mind our own business and when we
>must act on the behalf of others, I submit that there aren't very
>many useful principles, unfortunately. The line between harmful
>meddling and failure to act against malevolence is not finitely
>characterizable.

How is this any different than anything in law? There are always 
uncertainties, to be weighed by a wise and sober judge of high 
reputation in PPL anarchotopia.

Or by me, in my own wise and sober decision-making.

I wrote:

>I can certainly stop Samantha from bludgeoning Spike.

Lee replied:

>But what about the rest of us?  We actually need it a lot more
>than he does, given what some of us are prone to say.

Hey, I'm not unboundedly moral, compassionate, and reckless. But I 
can be bribed.

I wrote:

>The challenge for extropians is to think of clever ways to free the 
>world (and to end the enslavement or subjugation of women, which is 
>a good metric for freedom) that are cheap (in dollars and lives), 
>non-governmental, and/or non-violent.

Lee replied:

>Yes, there does seem to be some usefulness in the concept of
>tribal boundaries, e.g. national ones.

Where do you read this in what I wrote?

>And I would hope that you would not limit yourself to being cheap 
>and non-violent in the suppression of domestic evil, where such 
>wrongdoing is in
>violation of the law, which is an important part of our civilization.

I care about myself and my loved ones. Once I look beyond us, I don't 
draw many distinctions. I don't generally have a set of concentric 
rings, reducing in concern as my gaze goes outward.

A domestic or local evil may demand greater attention because I 
perceive it to impact me or my loved ones. Beyond that, evil is a 
concern based on degree of severity of evil, not geographic distance 
or the political entity in which it occurs.

>And I would hope that you would not limit yourself to being cheap 
>and non-violent

Note the term "and/or".


-- David.