<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2745.2800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Brett Paatsch wrote <FONT face=Arial size=2>>Are you suggesting a
tranhumanist bill of rights? I think there is some</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>merit </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>in such a
suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first draft</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and
maybe giving feedback.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What I really had in mind was not actually a
transhuman bill of rights - but a sort of rubric if you will - couched in
philosophic/moral rather than procedural terms. I have an inherent distrust of
codified 'law' - we have way too much of it and I have seen estimates that
statute law has burgeoned in some western nations by 200% or more in the
last two generations or so. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At present we employ vast numbers of
people to formulate written legislation and then yet greater numbers to
pick holes in the laws, circumvent them, evade them or otherwise invalidate
them. If all that vast repository of law was abolished overnight - I wonder -
would it really matter? Probably not IF you could still go to
court, plead your case, and be judged by good people in your society on the
basis of what is right and wrong... </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This in essence is the argument for common law. It
is flexible and reflects current mores and attitudes, </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>England got by for centuries on it. Codification and statutes are
well-meaning but too often fail in delivering genuine justice: <EM>In
the beginning was the word, then the word was twisted...</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The letter of the law is not the same as it's
spirit (which allows no loopholes and technical acquittals of wrongdoers).
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Perhaps it should also be said that legislation is
used at least as much to oppress as it is to protect....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>
<DIV>>> A good first step might be to make politicians personally
</DIV>
<DIV>>> accountable for their errors...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a
first step that is not</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>operationalisable. Holding all
politicians as a class accountable for</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>their collective </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or indeed </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>any one person. Because </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>they don't operate as a class. They take</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>individual oaths of office </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>and to the extent that they can individually</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>avoid being held to account </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>for breaking their oath, then of course</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>they will (on average) try to do just
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It should not be too difficult - one simple
practice would do it: every executive decision/promise has an executive sponsor
who signs off on the order/pledge and takes full responsibility for it. No
sponsor = no order/pledge, no matter how strong the wording it - becomes
just a suggestion/hope... A committee need not be jointly responsible - but
they must have one member who is prepared to 'carry the can' for the rest. Where
multiple members DO sign, retribution is not mitigated by membership of the
group - they are jointly and severally liable. The same system would work as
well for corporations as for politicians. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No more limited liability! no more decoupling of
action from adverse consequence! We might expect a lot less frivolity,
self-serving decision-making and empty promises if such a system were in
place...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jack</FONT></DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>