[ExI] No need for radical changes in human nature/was Re: Private and government R&D
dan_ust at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 2 12:51:41 UTC 2009
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, p0stfuturist at yahoo.com <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There is also the problem that under the coercive
>> system, some people are forced to pay for others' pet
>> projects. Some might find no problem with this, but I
>> think that's relevant to the discussion because coercion
>> introduces certain features that wouldn't be found under
>> a voluntary system.
> Sure. But let's have it
> clear: you'll have to redesign the CNS (at least
> the male CNS) so that people aren't so
> destructively predatory before you'll know
> voluntary economic 'systems'.
> At any rate, quite a wait.
> It might even be worth it for someone to
> arrange assisted suicide for themselves and then
> immediately they are cryopreserved, so as to conceivably
> live in a voluntarist world much later.
I disagree. I don't think any major change in human nature is necessary for a voluntary society. Granted, any voluntary society is bound to have some unwarranted coercion. E.g., under a libertarian system, I don't expect crime to disappear. But that's not what I meant: I didn't mean a society where there is no crime or where everything is perfect. Rather I meant one where institutionalized coercion is absent -- i.e., where there is no state and no contender to being a state.
That seems achievable now though perhaps unlikely. One reason to be believe it's possible is humans have approached this in the past and even now in statist societies most human interactions are voluntary NOT coercive. For example, the interactions on this list. As far as I know, no one here literally beats up any of her or his interlocutors.
More information about the extropy-chat