<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-07-01 20:15, Eugenio Martínez
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANSO=1=f9y0qOd2ESzExJRRQhKrOhNBMU2++bjPtrYGnMGaEqQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>What? What a definition...<br>
<br>
The hermeneutics of this word is hard, because in Europe,
usually, saying liberal we mean "Neocon" or ultracapitalist
while in USA you call liberal to the leftwinged.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think that liberal, in the european sense, is not
compatible with transhumanism, nor with any branch of
humanism.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hmmm... so what does that make us here who think that Locke and
Hayek were roughly right, that individuals should be in charge of
their own lives, collectives do not have any moral value in
themselves, and that governments are dangerous imperfect tools that
should be used (carefully) only for the purposes to which they are
suited?<br>
<br>
Sure, there are plenty of disagreements on these ideas, but it seems
hard to argue that they are counter to transhumanism or humanism. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University
</pre>
</body>
</html>