<html>
<body>
Okay, Hal. Let's see how Max answers.<br><br>
But for myself, the principles are in direct alignment with extropic
thinking, critical thinking and rational optimism.<br><br>
NOT any political viewpoint. <br><br>
And that is my 2 cents.<br><br>
If you want to fire me, go ahead.<br><br>
But I will not change my course of thinking because I believe it is
extropic, not bogged down by any one political.<br><br>
Natasha Vita-More<br><br>
<br>
At 01:26 AM 9/8/2005, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I know this is a controversial
topic, and this may be an unwelcome<br>
contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate<br>
to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say
about<br>
various political systems. My reading of the principles of Open
Society<br>
and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a
libertarian<br>
approach to political life.<br><br>
What is it that distinguishes libertarianism from other political
systems?<br>
As I use the term, I see it as that political system which minimizes
the<br>
use of coercion and compulsion and allows individuals the maximum
freedom<br>
to make their own decisions about their lives. In a libertarian
society,<br>
people are free to make mutual volutary agreements about social and<br>
economic matters. For example, there is no minimum wage, because
that<br>
prevents people from agreeing to work for less than a
centrally-defined<br>
pay rate. People are not taxed to pay for social insurance or
welfare<br>
systems, because again that interferes with people's freedom to make<br>
mutual agreements as they see fit.<br><br>
Now, I think we have a number of participants here who would object
to<br>
the formation of a society organized around these principles. They
would<br>
view such a society, without the economic protections which have
become<br>
nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, as barbaric, primitive and
unfair.<br>
They would, in particular, consider it inconsistent with the
principles<br>
of Extropy. It is this question which I want to address.<br><br>
The current version of the Principles of Extropy at<br>
<a href="http://extropy.org/principles.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://extropy.org/principles.htm</a> is in my opinion a well written
document<br>
that lays out an attractive philosophy which is highly appropriate
for<br>
our fast changing world. Max More has done a great job at creating
a<br>
framework for dealing with issues in a dynamic and flexible way,
while<br>
holding to the concept of maximizing human potential which has
always<br>
been the core of Extropian beliefs.<br><br>
Some readers have suggested that the Principles have been "watered
down"<br>
or altered to minimize a supposed excessive degree of
libertarianism,<br>
but I don't see that at all. In my reading the Principles are in
fact<br>
strongly libertarian and amply demonstrate the commitment to freedom
and<br>
voluntary, non-coercive arrangements that are the core of
libertarianism.<br><br>
The Principles are long and I don't have room to take them apart
sentence<br>
by sentence. I would invite those who disagree to look through
the<br>
Principles and find support for minimum wage restrictions and
welfare<br>
taxation, or other forms of social coercion and control. Here are
a<br>
few quotes which demonstrate the libertarian flavor of the
Principles,<br>
followed by my comments. From Open Society:<br><br>
"The freedom of expression of an open society is best protected by
a<br>
social order characterized by voluntary relationships and
exchanges."<br><br>
This is essentially the defining principle of libertarianism.<br><br>
"Within an open society individuals, through their voluntary
consent,<br>
may choose to submit themselves to more restrictive arrangements in<br>
the form of clubs, private communities, or corporate entities. Open<br>
societies allow more rigidly organized social structures to exist so<br>
long as individuals are free to leave."<br><br>
Free to leave is the operative word here. Coercive government<br>
restrictions cannot be escaped.<br><br>
"Even where we find some of those choices mistaken or foolish,
open<br>
societies affirm the value of a system that allows all ideas to be
tried<br>
with the consent of those involved."<br><br>
A good example would be someone who chooses to work for less than what
we<br>
think he should, or without the health and safety protections we
think<br>
he should demand. The libertarian perspective endorsed here calls
on<br>
us to restrain our tendency to enforce limits on people who choose
to<br>
make what such foolish choices.<br><br>
"Extropic thinking conflicts with the technocratic idea of
coercive<br>
central control by insular, self-proclaimed experts."<br><br>
And yet that is exactly what we have with economic regulations of
the<br>
type I am discussing. The minimum wage is set on the basis of
some<br>
economist's or sociologists ideas of what constitutes a just amount.<br>
It is set via coercive central control, exactly what Max warns
against.<br><br>
"In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be<br>
ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives."<br><br>
A perfect capsule summary of libertarianism. But let me quote the
end<br>
of this paragraph, which strikes a different tone:<br><br>
"But for individuals and societies to flourish, liberty must come
with<br>
personal responsibility. The demand for freedom without
responsibility<br>
is an adolescent's demand for license."<br><br>
I certainly do not read this as an endorsement of coercive,
centralized<br>
government control! That would be utterly inconsistent with the
points<br>
which are made again and again throughout. Rather, Max is observing
that<br>
philosophically, society will flourish when people behave
responsibly.<br>
He is not saying therefore that society should force people to
behave<br>
according to some centralized definition of responsible
behavior.<br><br>
Now for some quotes from the discussion of Self-Direction:<br><br>
"Each individual should be free and responsible for deciding
for<br>
themselves in what ways to change or to stay the same."<br><br>
While this does not directly address the economic issues above, it
is<br>
a further reiteration of the libertarian goal of non-coercion.<br><br>
"It is extropic to take responsibility for the consequences of
our<br>
choices, refusing to blame others for the results of our own free<br>
actions."<br><br>
Again this is a fundamental principle of libertarianism. When
people<br>
make mistakes, they take responsibility for them, they do not look
to<br>
a paternalistic government to fix the problem for them.<br><br>
"Personal responsibility and self-determination are
incompatible<br>
with authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices
and<br>
spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons."<br><br>
"Coercion of mature, sound minds outside the realm of
self-protection,<br>
whether for the purported 'good of the whole' or for the
paternalistic<br>
protection of the individual, is unacceptable."<br><br>
Again, two very strong statements of libertarian principles. The
kinds<br>
of economic regulations I listed above are imposed for precisely
these<br>
reasons, coercing people who are attempting to engage in voluntary<br>
relationships either for the good of the whole (as in welfare state<br>
taxation) or for paternalistic protection (as in the minimum wage).<br>
These comments perfectly exemplify the libertarianism which is
implicit<br>
in these Principles.<br><br>
"We act benevolently not by acting under obligation to sacrifice
personal<br>
interests; we embody benevolence when we have a disposition to help<br>
others."<br><br>
Taxation to help the poor is not a benevolent policy under this
analysis.<br>
Forcing people to act under obligation to sacrifice their personal<br>
interests does not promote benevolence. Only voluntary giving,
the<br>
personal disposition to help others, is true benevolence and a true<br>
value to society.<br><br>
<br>
I think these quotes are enough to make an initial case. Please,
read<br>
the Principles yourself, especially these two, and see if you don't<br>
see the libertarianism which is present in virtually every part of
the<br>
analysis and discussion.<br><br>
I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the<br>
Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is
somehow<br>
inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of
non-coercion<br>
is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the foundations of
Extropian<br>
thinking that it is hard to imagine how people could see it
otherwise.<br><br>
Hal Finney<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat</a> </blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha
</a><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Vita-More</a>
<dd>Cultural Strategist, Designer
<dd>Studies of the Future, University of Houston
<dd>President, <a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Extropy Institute</a>
<dd>Founder, <a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/">Transhumanist Arts
& Culture</a> <br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>Knowledge is the most
democratic source of power.</i> Alvin Toffler
<dd><i>Random acts of kindness... </i>Anne Herbet<br><br></font>
</dl></body>
</html>