[ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

Dan dan_ust at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 21 14:17:52 UTC 2011


If you're going to define "criminal" with reference only to what the state dictates is criminal, then none of this really matters. Calling, e.g., private individuals or even other non-state groups criminal via this method ends up only telling us the state has labeled them so -- and there's no reason to accept this as more than merely an expression of the preferences of the state or of the ruling class.
 
In this discussion here, then, it would have little meaning. Emphatically stating that X is a criminal or Y is a criminal organization -- as one list member did -- would be basically meaningless -- or have as much meaning as saying, "Gay marriage is illegal is Utah!" It certainly wouldn't and, more importantly, shouldn't persuade anyone to accept the state's view. Let me try to drive this home here. If the state or if all states outlawed life extension and any research having to deal with Extropianism or transhumanism, would any of you say, "Well, we're criminals now -- just like Al Capone or Ted Bundy."?
 
Moreover, there is a way to define crime and crimimality without reference to the state. This is via some form of law that transcends and is even presumed by state law. I think the natural law approach does this and is a means to judge even the actions of states. If so, then when a state violates natural law, it is behaving criminally and has committed a crime -- even if the state itself mandated and legalized the action. (I won't provide a justification of this position here. I would recommend, though, reading http://freenation.org/a/f13l2.html by Roderick Long. The topic would likely be too much political and moral philosophy for here -- in other words, probably way off topic or seemingly so for many.)
 
Regards,
 
Dan
From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
To: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Libertarianism wins again...


2011/7/20 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>

Your view of deregulation overlooks two significant facts. One, corporations are creatures of the state. Therefore, absent the state, they would all likely cease to exist.

Mmhhh, interesting issue. In fact, companies are the product of a legal system, but legal systems may well exist even without a "State" in the modern, western sense. Same as contracts (in fact, companies *are* contracts).
 

And the biggest criminal of all, in any region, tends to be the state.
>
This sounds well rhetorically, but it is actually an oxymoron, because whenever a State exists, "crime" is defined as the breach of (a law which is part of a subset of) its rules. 

Then, individual officers can breach them, but if the "State" does, it has simply changed the rules actually in force or introduced a new exception thereto.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110721/0cbc8685/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list