[ExI] Cephalization, proles--Where is government going?

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 6, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> On 6 May 2011 03:20, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
> I. A Capitol Idea
>     Since you are all politicos *de nos jours* we might try and
> evaluate political epimemetics in the past few centuries--or to what
> direction they tend.  Being predominantly a Western group, we can talk
> about politics that are more familiar to all of us, which manifest
> most strongly in that great white hippo Liberal Democracy and its
> opponent, libertarianism.
> 
>     Both are concerned with freedom, but which is most 'free'?  On
> the face of things, libertarianism seems to be freedom at its purest.
> But it is also true that pure freedom, a la state of nature, carries
> with it the constant stress of death and despair.  
> 
> "Predominantly Western" sounds like an eufemism. Predominantly "Anglo-Saxon", or even "American(ised?)" could be closer to target. :-)
> 
> In fact, I am always surprised in our little political discussions how the great divide seems between those who are primarily concerned with i) individual freedom "to do what one likes" and those who are primarily with ii) individual freedom "from basic and/or not-so-basic needs".

In my case and that of many others here they are nearly exactly equal and for the same reasons.  The first is the only way I believe can enable the second.

> 
> In continental speech, political freedom is (or used to be until quite recently) in the first place iii) *collective freedom*, as in independence and self-determination, at a national, local and group level, which of course include the ability of the relevant entity to choose for itself the norms to which to obey and under which to function.
> 
> Now, it is worth noting that some tensions exist as well between this latter view and the formers, since the formers' proponents are only too ready to admit that, eg, legislative process is bound to restrict itself to the notarisation of the rules which "objectively" serve at best freedom of type i) or of type ii), so they are not so inclined to grant much scope for the ability of a given people to regulate its internal affairs as it sees best (as opposed to, say, the intervention of an "enlightened" foreign power or international bureaucracy) or for political and legal diversity across the world - with the related "Darwinian" competition amongst different systems, which seems to me as the best possible bet for transhumanism on a global scale.
> 

There is a bit too much cultural relativism here.  Not all cultures are as likely to lead to as happy and empowered outcomes.  

- s


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110508/69449b9a/attachment.html>