[ExI] GOV _ TRUMP
johnkclark at gmail.com
Fri Mar 31 23:27:40 UTC 2017
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
> The British though otherwise. If Washington has lost the war he
>> would have been hanged.
> You're conflating being a traitor with being a radical.
A traitor is a radical who lost, a patriot is a radical who won.
> Had history been slightly different -- for those who actually read history
> -- Washington might have simply ended up as an officer in the British
Before the Revolution Washington WAS a
officer in the British military
and fought for them in the
French and Indian War.
Then the British behavior radicalized him.
> Being of an aristocratic bent, too, isn't at all keeping with wanting to
> leave office -- to retire to his estates.
Well then let's have three cheers for
aristocrats, maybe he wasn't a radical after all, most radicals who gain
power never want to give it up.
>>> Also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't
>>> about seizing power.
>> Then libertarianism is a trivial movement that should be of
>> no interest to a serious minded individual.
> You said you were a libertarian,
> sometimes even claim you are one
> but you believe, in your heart of hearts, that seizing power if the
> important thing.
> Well, the important political thing from a libertarian perspective is that
> everyone be free
> not that any movement have power over everyone else.
Dan, in my younger days I may have been somewhat naive in my libertarian
ideas, but I was never THAT naive. It may come as a shock to you but not
with you that abolishing every nation state on the face of the earth would
be a good idea
so if you're going to accomplish th
grand goal you're going to have to push them. And elementary physics will
tell you that you can't push something over the finish line without power.
Will the powerful people who implement this radical change in how
civilization is organized be themselves
corrupted by that power? Very likely. That's one reason radical political
change seldom makes people happier.
> Well, we can agree to disagree on the permanence of the state. The state
> certainly has staying power,
Six thousand years and counting.
> but right up until slavery was abolished, there were quite brilliant
> people arguing that it was a permanent institution.
I was once all enthusiastic about Privately Produced Law and Private
Protection Agencies, and if we were starting from scratch I still think
that would be the way to go, but we are 6000 years from scratch. And there
is another problem, the countime clock to the singularity. Things are
advancing on the AI front faster than I expected, I no longer think there
is a snowball's chance in hell of making gargantuan changes in the social
structure (like abolishing the nation state) before the singularity without
> Who argued anything about starting from scratch?
Well, one of us is arguing that nearly every social contract in existence
should be immediately torn up and one of us is not. So you tell me which
one is arguing in favor of starting from scratch and which one is not.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat