[extropy-chat] Re: Questioning The Consensus

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:46 AM
Subject: Questioning The Consensus


> Dirk,
> From: http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/principia/judicial/index.html
> "The origin of Rights in human nature is a more plausible argument. For
> example, it can be argued that the 'Right of self defence' is rooted in
> and derived from innate instincts for self preservation. However, it
> does require some convoluted and unconvincing reasoning to extrapolate
> that to other Rights such as the 'Right to vote'. It is also not much
> of a foundation if one has the power to alter Human nature at its
> genetic source, which will soon be an available technology. Which
> leaves Rights as a social construct - but what kind of construct?"
>
> The "right to vote" is a part and parcel of the right to choose, a
> result of every individual posessing free will.

Sure - you can choose to fly like a bird by flapping your arms, but it won't
work.
You can choose to express your opinion, and others can choose to ignore it -
or execute you.

> Having the power to alter human nature, according to your charter,
> would be illegal and unacceptable, so you cannot have your cake and eat

Not at all - where does it say that? The Consensus Essentia?

> it. You cannot argue away human nature as the source of rights with
> claims that technology is hand hand to alter that nature if your party
> intends to prevent such technology from being applied.

On the contrary - the party is expressly in favour of altering Human
Nature - which is why the notion of Rights as flowing from Human Nature is
no foundation at all.

> Furthermore, self modification is an inherent part of self-ownership.
> If you cannot alter your own nature, then you are a slave to that which
> prevents you from doing so.

Who said one cannot alter ones nature?

> Secondly, do you really think that altering of human beings would go so
> far as to change the basic features of human sentience? Given that the

Yes, in some cases.

> goal of your alleged claim to transhumanism is to improve humans, to
> advance human capabilities, it follows that a more capable human would
> have MORE rights. Nor is this out of line with human development. Once

Just as many Rights as they can take and hold - like now.

> humans could not speak, and therefore had no right to free speech. Once
> human predecessors had no weapons technology, and had no right to bear
> arms.

So?

> As we become more abled, we gain greater liberty. As humans are

And we lose it by becoming dependent on others.

> differently abled, they are differently free. A quadrepelegic is not
> free to walk until s/he makes the investment in regaining that ability,
> but the quadrepelegic is free to travel by other means: by wheelchair,
> for example. A person capable of leading a nation responsibly is able
> to handle the liberty of controlling massive destructive capabilities,
> like nuclear weapons.
>
> Your "Consensus" is a rather minor form of fascism that grants liberty
> as privilege issued by the whim of government and not as ability gained
> via nature of being born or nurture of being raised as a free citizen.

A loonytarian POV.
As I said, in practice Rights flow from a social contract.
They have no other existence.

> No government you imagine can prevent becoming a tyranny because you
> have proposed no means of embedding checks on abuse of power or of
> limiting the potential for majoritarian tyranny. Contracts mean nothing
> when the people who sign them do not believe they posess that which
> they are negotiating as an inherent property of their being. When
> anything can be negotiated, then slavery is only one vote away.

Nothing in principle can prevent tyranny, only make it less likely.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org